Thursday, April 04, 2019

Exclusive interview with senior Australian ex-cop about the misuse of Domestic Violence restraining orders

Bettina Arndt

Last October, Augusto Zimmermann, a law professor and former WA law reform commissioner, was asked to speak to the Police Union about his concerns about the misuse of domestic violence restraining orders. Augusto has been a brave campaigner against West Australia’s greatly expanded domestic violence laws which give enormous power to women to ruin men’s lives with false accusations.

But when the time came to give the speech, the organisers had lost courage and he was slated to talk about free speech. He still took the opportunity to talk to the police officers about domestic violence, explaining how free speech on this topic is being muzzled. Having had prior experience teaching police officers in Rio de Janeiro, Augusto was well-equipped to speak about the role of police as enforcers of rights in a community. He explained our police are currently being placed in an invidious position, denied their rightful role as protectors of the innocent and punishers of the guilty and instead, used as instruments of oppression in a corrupt system.

Tough words which clearly resonated with the boys in blue, who are doing the dirty work for the feminist-led campaign using domestic violence laws to empower women and demonise men.

I’ve made a number of videos about the abuse of domestic violence restraining orders, including an interview with Augusto last year. I’ve heard from police across the country who are uncomfortable with what is happening but are not able to speak out because they are fearful of losing their jobs.

But now, finally, we have a terrific interview with a retired NSW chief inspector who contacted me because he is horrified by where this is all heading. We have kept his identity hidden and disguised his voice to protect this brave man who is blowing the lid on this huge scandal corrupting our legal system.

Please help me promote it as widely as possible. Here’s the actual video:

And here’s a short version you can use for promotion on social media:

Email from Bettina:

Senator Fraser Anning is 'censured' by Australian politicians for linking the Christchurch terror attacks to Muslim immigration

What Anning initially tweeted which provoked the uproar was:

“Does anyone still dispute the link between Muslim immigration and violence?”

“As always, leftwing politicians and the media will rush to claim that the causes of today’s shootings lie with gun laws or those who hold nationalist views, but this is all cliched nonsense."

“The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place.”

I am not sure what the Senator said that is wrong.  Without Muslim immigration to New Zealand there could have been no massacre of Muslims in New Zealand.  What is wrong with that logic? 

And without the frequent incidence of Muslim immigrants going on Jihad and massacring Westerners, the Christchurch gunman would have had no motivation for his attack.  Tarrant certainly did fear the way Musim immigration was going and said that he was hitting back at them. He felt that if Muslims can  massacre innocent Western men, women and children then it was only fair for him to massacre innocent Muslim men, women and children.  It's an Old Testament conception of justice but still a common one

It seems to me that Senator Anning was simply stating the facts.  But, as we know, stating facts these days can be "incorrect".

Independent senator Fraser Anning has been censured by parliament for his 'shameful and pathetic' comments which linked the Christchurch terror attacks to Muslim immigration.

The Queenslander was rebuked by his colleagues on Wednesday for blaming Muslim migrants for the horrific attack in which a white supremacist killed 50 worshippers at mosques last month.

'Senator Anning's comments were ugly and divisive. They were dangerous and unacceptable from anyone, let alone a member of this place,' government Senate leader Mathias Cormann told parliament.

Labor's Senate leader Penny Wong said while scores of injured people were being treated for gunshot wounds, Senator Anning fanned the flames of division.

The censure motion, moved by Mr Cormann and Ms Wong, was passed unanimously after Mr Anning left the chamber.

Mr Anning denied blaming victims for the attack and described reasoning's of the motion as attack 'barely coherent', SBS reported.

'This censure motion against me is a blatant attack on free speech,' he said. 'The claim that this someone blames the victims is absurd, my real crime is that I simply told the truth. '

Senator Anning then took to social media, writing: 'The left wing outrage was on show today!' 'But no matter how many times they tried to condemn me, they could not refute that what I said is 100 per cent true.'

Following the Christchurch terror attack on March 15, Senator Anning released a statement linking Muslim migration to the shooting. 

He said while any form of violence could never be justified, the growing fear of the 'increasing Muslim presence' was behind the massacre.

'The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program that allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place.'

In a follow-up statement, he said he opposed to any form of violence within our community and totally condemned the actions of the gunman.

'What it highlights is the growing fear within our community, both in Australia and New Zealand, of the increasing Muslim presence,' he said.


Australian academics are going down the Communist road


With Anzac Day near, self-loathing academics are back. Anything that undermines our national pride, besmirches our military achievements and questions our values will be prosecuted.

Rewriting Australia’s proud military record is important to revisionists. They want us to see brave, selfless service as being nothing more than the projection of white supremacy.

Murdoch University history lecturer Dean Aszkielowicz is the latest to demonstrate contempt for our national heritage. He mocks a section of the Australian War Memorial website that states “Australians continue­ to invoke the Anzac spirit, including the concept of egalitarianism, a sardonic sense of humour and a contempt for danger, in times of hardship”.

Aszkielowicz tells his students that “very few things the Aust­ralian War Memorial claims on its website about Anzac Day are true”.

How is it that only 74 years after the end of World War II, a young academic, filled with resentment and lack of appreciation for the world he has inherited, could be so ignorant of its values and have such disdain for the bravery of those who saved this country from tyranny?

Yet he and many of his academic cohort share this obsession to rewrite history and deny the real­ity that distant wars fought to preserve freedom also helped shape our national identity.

Murdoch University defends Aszkielowicz, saying “students are encouraged to draw on arguments and views from across the political and ­ academic spectrum”. “In the context of these lectures­, our academics provided ­informed but challenging comment respectfully — this is academic freedom in action,” it says.

Academic freedom? At so many universities these words have assumed Orwellian qualities. Today, freedom in the classroom and on the campus means conformity and alignment with the approved dogma. Refusal to toe the line can mean exclusion, expulsion and failure for students.

Take Bjorn Lomborg’s attempts to establish the Australian Consensus Centre, along with a $4 million endowment, at the University of Western Australia. He was rejected because, as UWA student guild president Lizzy O’Shea observed: “Many believe his (Dr Lomborg’s) ‘research’ downplays the effects of climate change and calls for inaction.” At least three other universities agreed and also turned him down.

Heretical teaching clearly has its limits. Those limits terminated the careers of Peter Ridd and Bob Carter, each having served for 30 years at James Cook University. Both differed with their colleagues over climate change, with Ridd criticising his colleagues’ “deficient” and “misleading” environmental research. He also called into question claims the Great Barrier Reef was being wrecked by global warming.

This was heresy on a grand scale and, rather than investigate his claims, the university simply fired him. It seems at JCU some academics have more freedom than others.

This politicisation of our universities also can be seen in the number of rejections experienced by the Ramsay Centre, which is seeking to establish liberal arts courses leading to a Western civilisation degree.

The centre offers a handsome endowment and numerous scholarships, but University of Queensland antagonists reflect the general academic view the courses are “trying to undermine critical analyses of ‘the West’ in favour of an anti-intellectual celebration of Western civilisation, something which is impossible to defend in a modern university”. In other words, we won’t have the virtues of Western civilisation taught at our “modern” universities.

This is now a pattern. Students at the University of NSW are told James Cook was an invader rather than a discoverer.

The rewritten history of governor Arthur Phillip portrays him as genocidal, notwithstanding his demands Aborigines be well treated. He abolished slavery 20 years before Britain. Yet better to depict him as a white supremacist than someone doing his best with what he had.

Likewise, governor Lachlan Macquarie must be remembered for his tit-for-tat violence towards Aborigines than his role in the social, economic and architectural development of the colony.

There is a growing movement to have the statues of all three removed and their names erased from public places.

Winston Churchill understood “a nation that forgets its past has no future”. French histor­ian Ernest Renan said “forgetting … is a crucial factor in the creation of the nation”.

Louisa Lim, author of The People’s Republic of Amnesia: Tiananmen Revisited, writes: “National amnesia has become what Chinese writer Yan Lianke calls a ‘state-sponsored sport’. And as Beijing’s global influence rises, its controlling instincts — to tame, corral, shape, prune, expurgate history and historical memory — are increasingly exported. At home, Beijing’s tightening grip on history designs not only what can be remembered but also the manner in which it can be marked.”

China’s latest official version of history has the force of law. It venerates Chinese patriotism and military sacrifices. As well as uniting the country behind common beliefs, Beijing will conveniently use this history to press territorial claims over the entire South China Sea.

In Australia, we have yet to hear the vision splendid our universities and academics, such as Aszkielowicz, envisage will arise from the ashes of our best-forgotten past. Perhaps, like the Chinese, it is a socialist utopia where censorship, not academic freedom, is clinically enforced and where complying academics can win an exalted place in history.


'Major distraction': school dumps iPads, returns to paper textbooks

As classrooms across the country embrace digital textbooks, one Sydney school has declared the e-book era over and returned to the old-fashioned hard copy version because it improves comprehension and reduces distraction.

For the past five years, Reddam House's primary and junior high school classes have used e-textbooks on iPads. But the consistent feedback from the students has been that they preferred pages to screens.

Teachers also found the iPads were distracting and did not contribute to students' technology skills, prompting the school to announce that students should no longer use digital textbooks, and must revert to hard-copy versions instead.

"We hadn't completely gone away from hard copy," said principal Dave Pitcairn. "We kept year 11 and 12 hard copy. When [students] got to year 11, and now had the comparison between digital and hard copy, they preferred the hard copy.

"The ease of navigation through the textbook was easier with the hard copy. I believe they learn better the more faculties they use, the more senses they use in research and reading and making notes."

Teachers at the eastern suburbs private school, which regularly appears on the HSC top-ten honours list, reported that iPads were hindering learning.

"[Students] could have messages popping up and all sorts of other alerts," said Mr Pitcairn. "Also, kids being kids, they could jump between screens quite easily, so would look awfully busy and not be busy at all."

The school will also phase out iPads and begin a bring-your-own device policy with a preference for laptops.

Dr Margaret Merga, a senior lecturer in education at Edith Cowan University, said an analysis of all the research into differences in book formats has found that understanding improves when information is read in a paper rather than a digital format.

Research into why young people prefer hard-copy textbooks "points to greater perceived comfort, comprehension, and also retention of what's been read," she said. "Some have found that there's less immersive involvement [in digital text]."

A University of Maryland study in 2017 found there was little difference in the two formats when students were asked about the general themes of a text, but the printed version made them better able to answer specific questions.

The study's authors suggested print be preferred when an assignment demands more engagement or deeper comprehension, or if students - primary, secondary or tertiary - were required to read more than one page or 500 words.

As for the weight of the textbooks in backpacks, Mr Pitcairn said students could leave them in their lockers or use a digital version at home. "I've noticed that students prefer their textbook in both places," he said.


 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

No comments: