What I learned as a guest house proprietor

I learned about poverty.  The house had 22 single rooms and was located in a lower socio-economic area.  The inhabitants were all poor. But they weren't "down on their luck".  They made their luck.  They were generally pleasant people to talk to and were quite prone to conservative views on social issues.  None of them had any time for "poofters" (homosexuals), for instance.  They were however much prone to larceny. They stole from one another with considerable regularity. I got on quite well with them in general. I would not have been able to run the place otherwise.  My own working class background undoubtedly helped.  I could use their own language and idioms in talking to them.

But because I got on well with them, I got to know a fair bit about them.  None of them had a job so lived on welfare payments. And by the time the next payment came around there was nothing left of the previous payment.  Their pockets were empty.  They didn't save a cent.  There was just one exception, a very black TI man (a Melanesian) by the name of Apu.  As he handed me his rent one day he remarked that he had got into a fight last night and lost his money.  He then went on to say: "So I went to the bank and got some out".

So why was it only a black man who was able to save? Christianity is strong on TI so I guess Apu learnt some good habits from that. There was no religion among my white tenants.

So it was amusing to see what happened on "payday".  A steady stream of "goon" (sweet white wine,  mostly "Fruity Lexia") in cardboard boxes would arrive.  I don't begrudge them that but it is part of where their money went.  Goon gives you the biggest hit for your buck but even goon is not cheap.

And the other money habit I observed was that my tenants were hopeless shoppers.  They would buy rubbish food -- like bags of potato crisps -- and buy it off a nearby service station where prices were generally at least a third higher than at a  supermarket,  And there was a good supermaket only about 10 minutes walk away.  Had they made a point of price-conscious shopping they would have had substantial money left over by the end of the week.

So they made their own poverty.

There are of course some people whom the Victorians called "the deserving poor" -- people who are poor due to some sort of misadventure rather than due to fecklessness -- but I saw none of those.  I have to conclude that they are a small minority of the poor -- albeit a minority who do deserve compassion and help.

So what policy lessons do I draw from what I saw?  For a start, most of the ones I saw would be only marginally employable.  Their skills, habits and attitudes were not really consistent with a job. Training would probably lift some of them into employability but whether they would actually  take a job would be an issue.  Some of them were clearly quite happy to live fancy-free on welfare payments.

The only way I see forward is something the Australian Federal government is already trying in some localities -- giving welfare payments in the form of a debit card that can be used only to buy essentials but not such things as alcohol and tobacco products: similar to the American SNAP system ("food stamps").  But we know that such a system has its limits.  The card holder buys goods that SOMEONE ELSE wants and exchanges those goods for money.  But such a system should in some cases make the getting of a job more attractive

The Victorian attitude of DISAPPROVAL of poverty would probably also help but any return of that is most unlikely. Society has come to accept its parasites -- JR






Pro and anti marriage equality campaigners clash outside Sydney University

"Yes" voters vilify Christians to the bitter end

With only two days left to return the same-sex marriage postal survey, the campaign ended the way it began — with rainbow fascists silencing dissent and demonising Christians.

The latest display of “tolerance” comes from The Rose Hotel in Chippendale, which has banned a group of young Christians from holding their monthly meeting in the pub’s beer garden because patrons complained that gay marriage was being discussed.

A Theology on Tap meeting, titled Listening as a Form of Love, was cancelled after organiser Natalie Ambrose received an email on from The Rose Hotel licensee George Kanellos.

“I’m terribly sorry to inform you that we can no longer let you host your event with us in the beer garden,” the email said.

“We’ve experienced some backlash from customers, and within these complaints they have threatened not to return if these events continue… I was told by staff yesterday that worked the previous event that 4 different groups of people got up and left and, out of the two groups, we were told that they might not ever come back.

“It was about the debate of marriage equality that had frustrated these groups and our locals.”

Kanellos refused to comment when contacted, but confirmed he had cancelled the Theology on Tap booking on the first Monday of every month, which attracts 200 to 300 people.

The event which so antagonised Rose Hotel patrons was a talk last month by American nun Sister Mary Patrice Ahearn titled, ironically enough, Resilient Faith: How to Survive When Under Attack.

The talk, organised by the University of Notre Dame’s Catholic chaplaincy, was not about gay marriage, but how to cope with being attacked for your faith.

Sister Patrice quoted the Gospels: “If the world hates you know that it has hated me before it hated you.” She mentioned gay marriage as one issue, along with euthanasia, for which Christians would be persecuted.

“Most of us are feeling… tension, conflict, disruption in relationships, because of these issues,” she said.

She urged her audience to find “common ground between the two sides… I’m sure most of us in this room know or love someone who’s gay. Persons with same-sex attraction desire love, friendship and intimacy as much as you or I do.”

In other words, she could not have been more loving or charitable.

But for the “tyrants of tolerance”, anything a nun says has to be hate speech, and discrimination against Christians is the highest sign of virtue.

It’s part of what former High Court justice Dyson Heydon describes as “the new de-Christianisation campaign… the tyrants of tolerance pay lip service, but only lip service, to freedom of ­religion as a fundamental human right,” he said in a speech last month.

“Modern elites do not desire tolerance. They demand uncondi­tional surrender”. There’s no way an LGBTIQ group would be treated so shabbily as Theology on Tap, not least because sexual orientation and every other permutation of human diversity — except religious belief — is protected under anti-­discrimination laws.

Freedom not to serve people with whom you disagree only cuts one way. It is perfectly lawful for a pub to hang a “No Christians” sign in its window, which effectively is what The Rose Hotel has done.

Vilifying Christians has been a hallmark of the same-sex marriage campaign.

Rainbow bullies have physically attacked No volunteers, spat on them, stolen their placards, vandalised their churches, racially vilified them, blockaded their meetings. They abused Catholic students at Sydney University as “homophobes”, “bigots”, “neo-Nazis” and “gay-bashers”. “Go wank yourself off at home with your f ... ing Jesus picture”, they screamed, on video.

They graffitied “Crucify No voters” on church walls, and stormed a Coalition for Marriage launch, chanting “crucify Christians”, and brandished a banner reading: “Burn Churches not Queers”.

The frightening intolerance of the rainbow fascists has been on display for everyone to see during the plebiscite process.

But disappointingly few high-­profile people stood up to defend traditional marriage — not one member of Cabinet, few religious leaders, no business leaders or sports bodies, almost no one in the media — even those regarded as conservatives.

So cowed is the business community that it is refusing to be associated with the Catholic Church.

One bank, which previously had donated to an archdiocesean annual appeal, this year grudgingly agreed to donate a smaller amount but on the condition its name was kept secret.

Any wonder that “No” voters have kept their opinions to themselves, and that published polls are wildly out of kilter with the reality that No campaigners have found on the ground?

No voters “feel like dissidents in their own country”, as the ACL’s Lyle Shelton puts it.

For all the criticism, with voter turnout at 80 per cent the process has been a success, and most importantly has galvanised a new generation of social conservatives, as Tony Abbott said last week.

Shelton says they are part of a “dissident movement against the elites and the celebrities and the media”.

“Win or lose, they’re determined to keep fighting for freedom.”

If the Yes vote gets up, religious freedom will be the battleground.

SOURCE





Queensland conservatives to block Leftist moves to veto coal mine loan

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk wants to veto the federal NAIF loan to the Adani project.

As the government is in caretaker mode, she would need Opposition Leader Tim Nicholls' support to veto the NAIF loan.

The Queensland election will be held on November 25.

LNP leader Tim Nicholls has accused the Premier of putting thousands of jobs at risk by attempting to veto a federal loan to the Adani Carmichael mine.

Late on Friday, Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk called a snap media conference to accuse the LNP in Canberra of a "smear" campaign against her and her partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers infrastructure advisory director Shaun Drabsch.

PwC acted for Adani on its application to the federal government’s Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility for an almost $1 billion concessional loan for its rail link, and her partner was part of the PwC team.

Ms Palaszczuk accused federal LNP senators of circulating rumours of a "conflict of interest" and said she would exercise the Queensland government's veto of the NAIF loan to remove doubt of any perception of a conflict of interest.

But she said she still supported the Adani project and its jobs.

With the government in caretaker mode after the election was called on Sunday, Mr Nicholls would need to support her veto decision of the NAIF loan for it to take effect.

Mr Nicholls said he knew nothing about the rumours the Premier mentioned. "I heard about them through the media just like thousands of other Queenslanders," he said.

Mr Nicholls questioned why the Premier was changing her mind if all the necessary conflict of interest measures were above board. "Given the NAIF loans are an independent federal process and state governments have a constitutional role to pass through the loan, what's the problem?" he said. "The Premier should honour her word and pass through the Adani loan if the independent NAIF makes such a decision."

It was understood the move would not necessarily stop a NAIF loan to the Adani mine, as it could be granted via a different process, but it would remove the Queensland government's involvement.

But federal Resources Minister Senator Matt Canavan claimed it was incorrect to suggest the federal government could fund a NAIF project without the cooperation of the state government.

"Under the rules, a state must sign the NAIF project finance project with the project proponent and have a role in management of the loan," Senator Canavan said.

Section 13(1) of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility mandate direction compels the NAIF Board to commence discussions with the relevant state as soon as possible on receiving an application, and states have a significant role, particularly in the investment decision and executive stage.

The NAIF board will only approve projects where there are no objections by the state or territory.

A letter dated June 16, 2016 from PwC managing partner Paul Lindstrom confirmed Mr Drabsch would "not be involved in any engagements with the Queensland government, its agencies or personnel on behalf of PwC".

A July 17, 2015 letter from Queensland Integrity Commissioner Richard Bingham "agreed no conflict is likely to arise".

Friday's announcement was met with approval from conservation groups opposed to the Adani mine. The Australian Marine Conservation Society's Imogen Zethoven said Ms Palaszczuk's decision showed she had recognised the concern felt by people about the Adani coal project.

Australian Conservation Foundation chief executive officer Kelly O'Shanassy said it was vitally important Mr Nicholls committed to also veto the loan. "This is a great moment for Australians that support clean air, clean water and a safe climate," she said.

From the moment she went to visit the acting governor, Ms Palaszczuk has been haunted by anti-Adani protesters, who have almost entirely left Mr Nicholls alone, but her stance on Friday could turn the tide for the remainder of the election campaign.

SOURCE






Pub ordered to pay anti-Islamic political party founder $2,500 for discrimination - after they told her she wasn't welcome inside the hotel

A pub has been ordered to pay an anti-Islamic political party founder $2,500 compensation after they told her she wasn't welcome inside because of her views.

Beach House Hotel and its general manager Paul Robins were found to have discriminated against Love Australia or Leave founder Kim Vuga on the basis of her political beliefs.

Mr Robins initially showed discrimination against Ms Vuga when he told her he did not want anything to do with her political party, the day before she wanted to attend drinks there, the Courier Mail reported.

Beach House Hotel and its general manager Paul Robins were found to have discriminated against Love Australia or Leave

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal member Jeremy Gordon said in his decision the manager also discriminated against Ms Vuga and her supporters by saying they were not welcome at the hotel or the car-park.

'A substantial reason for these things happening was Ms Vuga's political belief,' he said.

The hotel and Mr Robins claimed their exclusion was due to health and safety concerns, which Mr Gordon did not accept.

A party representative had initially been informed two weeks before Ms Vuga planned to hold a meeting in Hervey Bay that the hotel was available for drinks only.

Mr Robins then became concerned on August 8 when he saw a party flyer advertising a 'meet for drinks' and was worried people would be turning up for a meeting the next day.

He then said, in a phone conversation with Ms Vuga, that they could not meet at the hotel or in the carpark and said: 'Sorry, I don't want anything to do with your association'.

In an email, the manager later told Ms Vuga: 'We do not want to get involved or have the name of our business associated with the party'.

Ms Vuga's request for $25,000 was turned down as Mr Gordon didn't believe she had severely suffered from the incident.

He also dismissed her application for the hotel to publish apologies or undergo anti-discrimination training.

Ms Vuga believed from the start that she had a discrimination case which she thought was important to stand up for.

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