Australian Politics
Cops arrest extremely disruptive African woman inside busy McDonald’s Adelaide CBD store
Customers and staff at an Adelaide McDonald’s were left in shock as they witnessed a woman go over the counter to hurl abuse at workers while helping herself to food and drinks.
The incident, which occurred on Thursday night at the Hindley St store in the CBD, led to the woman’s arrest and multiple criminal charges.
The two-minute video begins with the woman, 19, already on the wrong side of the counter as startled staff watch her warily, with fries scattered in the background.
“What? I’ll beat you up and I’ll leave,” she yells, pushing her face towards staff in a challenge as she holds two drinks.
“Oh what’s that, what’s in that?” she asks, then grabs a paper bag. Not satisfied with what’s inside, she throws it away and continues to confront staff. Customers watch from the other side of the counter, some filming her.
Staff attempt to walk away from her as she approaches them and appear to remain calm throughout the clip. The woman can then be seen in the kitchen of the McDonald’s restaurant.
She then heads towards the Macca’s process line where they make all the burgers and helps herself, picking up a burger box and using her bare hands to shove some chips inside.
At this point, two staff members appear to be keeping a close eye on her, with one on the phone while the other films her.
The woman opens the drinks fridge. As she peruses the shelves, she says “Ooh what do I want” before grabbing a bottle of water for herself. She calls one of the staff members a “dumbass b***h”.
A customer tells her to “get out” and she says “Get the f**k out? Aww okay” but on her way out she is distracted by the McCafe display. She picks something from behind the glass display and pops it into her mouth.
Two police officers have arrived by this point. They calmly surround her and escort her out.
One of the young McDonald’s workers begins to tear up after the ordeal is over. Some customers try to console the clearly shaken staff members.
In a statement to news.com.au, South Australian police confirmed that a 19-year-old woman was arrested after the incident which happened around 10.35pm on Thursday night.
“It will be alleged the woman damaged a door and threw a bottle of water at staff,” police said. She was charged with disorderly behaviour, property damage and assault. She made bail and is due to appear in the Adelaide Magistrates Court on March 3, according to police.
*****************************************************
Queenslanders now have the right to die
A very limited right
Terminally ill Queenslanders are able to ask for medically-assisted death at a time of their choosing after the state's voluntary-assisted dying scheme came into effect.
State parliament voted to legalise voluntary-assisted dying in September 2021 after Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk took to the policy to the 2020 election.
People suffering a disease, illness or medical condition that is advanced, progressive and terminal and with less than one year to live can ask for medically-assisted death as of Sunday.
The decision to grant a request will be made by a panel of medical experts and must be approved by the patient's treating doctor.
The laws include safeguards to protect vulnerable people and ensure they have the mental capacity to make a request and it has been made without coercion.
Euthanasia advocates argue it gives terminally ill patients the right to choose how they want to spend their final days and to die with dignity.
Clem Jones Trust chair David Muir says the start of the scheme was due to activists and politicians working for decades to give Queenslanders a wider range of choices at the end of their lives.
"Many individuals and organisations have worked hard not just for years but for decades to achieve VAD laws in Queensland," he said in a statement.
"We should also recognise the MPs in the Queensland parliament from across the political spectrum who voted for the new laws.
"They all knew that voluntary assisted dying was never about them or the beliefs they may or may not hold, but has always been about enabling terminally ill Queenslanders to make a personal choice.
"As experience elsewhere shows, some people who apply for and are granted approval to access voluntary assisted dying end up not using it, but the mere fact it is available can deliver a humane and palliative effect at the end of life."
Opponents have argued it raises ethical and moral concerns and may put pressure on vulnerable people to end their lives and called for more funding for palliative care.
Queensland was the fifth jurisdiction to legalise euthanasia after Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania.
NSW passed voluntary assisted dying laws in May, meaning the laws will come into effect universally over the next 18 months.
Last month, federal parliament repealed a 25-year-old law put in place by Liberal MP Kevin Andrews restricting the rights of the ACT and Northern Territory to make euthanasia laws after the latter legalised assisted dying in 1995.
The ACT government plans to introduce legislation next year but the NT is yet to reveal its plans.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/queenslanders-now-die-163041432.html
***********************************************Save the planet – ditch environmentalism
Since becoming custodians of the environment, left-wing politicians, bureaucracies, and businesses have done little except monetise the rapid expansion of renewable energy which, ironically, is one of the most wasteful and destructive technologies in modern history.
Far from ‘saving the planet’, these environmentalists have made their intentions perfectly clear – and we should listen to them.
‘This is about system change!’ read the banners held aloft by the likes of spiritual leader Greta Thunberg and her pre-pubescent minions. She is the moral guide for a generation of children, teaching them to stand in the street screeching at the sky while the clunk of public money hits the pockets of the elite.
In Climate Book, Greta Thunberg describes the capitalist system as: ‘defined by colonialism, imperialism, oppression, and genocide by the so-called Global North to accumulate wealth that still shapes our current world order.’
Who is going to tell her that capitalism has been the default economic position underpinning human trade since we wandered out of the caves? Would you trust a person who believes the West invented capitalism with the future of human civilisation?
This is a religion to absolve the guilty, not an economic policy.
It could not be clearer that those who lack an education will never be able to save the world from anything, let alone dangerous ideology such as this. The only thing brainwashed children are useful for are the votes they cast in adulthood.
By ‘system change’ what the activists behind the children mean is ‘communism’ – or even a new variation of collectivism that we are beginning to know as eco-fascism. The flavour of destruction depends on which group of activists you come across and what the personal beliefs were of its leaders before the arrival of the #ClimateChange hashtag.
Some environmentalists think a form of communism will ‘save the planet’ because only dictatorial governments have the necessary power over individuals and the economy to carry out ‘uncomfortable change’ (read mass theft of property and rights).
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is one such individual who is warming up to the allure of dictatorship: ‘There’s a level of admiration I actually have for China. Their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime.’ Before Trudeau gets too excited, someone should point out that China is the most polluted nation on Earth where the worst man-made famine in human history took place, all under the watch of communism.
Other activists have aligned themselves with international corporations whose influence over global politics dwarfs the democratic process. These are the suited class that sip their way around closed-door lobbying conferences like the World Economic Forum, pretending that innovation rather than political coercion is driving their eco-success. These environmentalists believe that an authoritarian marriage between the State and Corporate can deliver profit at a faster rate than sluggish market forces, held back by concerned citizens.
This magical fountain of money is to be ripped out of the general public via green taxes and unreasonable legislation. Like robbing a bank, no one has a plan for what happens tomorrow when there is no apocalypse and no capitalist economy creating public wealth. Perhaps they’ll start taxing the carbon in our bodies and air in our lungs to make up the difference in their parallel economy…
New Zealand offers a glimpse of the future, with socialist Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern proud of what is, quite literally, a race-based water management policy. Such incoherent madness would have been laughed off last century. Her propensity for hypocrisy allows her to demonise farmers for their emissions while pleading with America to send as many tourists as possible, via plane, to a volcanic sandpit which leaks greenhouses gases like an open valve.
The reason that no particular label accurately defines the modern environmentalist movement as a whole is because they are a fractured group of competing political ideologies, all of which are jumping on the ‘green’ bandwagon to elevate their sphere of power. It is time for rational people to see them clearly. These ideas are the weeds of politics, infesting Western Civilisation with the intent of colonisation and eventual suffocation.
Short-sighted businesses, unaware that the end game does not benefit them, think that ‘going green’ means that the government will both kill off their market competitors via legislation and make available fortunes of public money for ‘investment’ justified by the undefined label of ‘saving the planet’.
Politicians hitched a ride early on, seeing that universities and schools had been inundated by failed communists who, to hide the rapid decline in education standards, now elicit praise for raising ‘responsible global citizens’ (who cannot add, spell, or reason). Not only have political movements capitalised on Millennials, they are pushing to lower the voting age to prop up their regimes with children.
The Greens and Labor have never cared much for economic stability or civil liberty, so it was no surprise to see them lead the charge on this. It was similarly inevitable that a movement like the Teals would emerge comprised of bored, wealthy, affluent women funded by self-interested renewables billionaires. They get to virtue signal to the cafe class while their victims remain quarantined in the poorer suburbs.
What remains astonishing is how easily the Liberals and Nationals burned their principles, buried their morality, and scrambled up after unscrupulous Parliamentarians to get a piece of that green salvation.
To be clear, conservation is admirable – eco-fascism is disgraceful, and all we have seen of our politicians in the last decade is a race to install a carbon prison state.
Australians used to be responsible. Clean up Australia Day was one of those worthy initiatives that taught children to take care of the land. Now, instead of cleaning up their local area, kids are demanding that the world’s worst polluters ramp up operations because their teachers gave them a slogan that was never questioned.
How are children ‘making a better world’ by the installation of millions of solar panels and wind turbines destined for landfill within 20 years? Or hundreds of acres of battery farms that face the same fate?
Did any of them do the cost and environmental calculations on the mining, transport, manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and disposal of these ‘planet saving’ technologies? How many of them know that kids, just like them, are sitting in mud pits mining cobalt while entire nations are having their natural resources financially raped by China’s debt trap diplomacy leaving local residents impoverished?
Do they know that sacred sites and ancient communities throughout China’s ‘autonomous’ region of Tibet are destroyed for renewable mining operations, and that their first nations people are imprisoned if they protest? Are they aware that the oceans are facing danger from rare earths deep sea mining operations, or that rare earths represent the largest mining boom in modern history, triggering huge amounts of devastation?
Because it’s not ‘coal’, it doesn’t make the news… Speaking of fossil fuels, their demonisation is done without mention of the pharmaceutical industry which is wholly reliant on petrochemicals. You cannot have the socialist dream of free healthcare without fossil fuels.
Conservative parties had a duty to Australia to fight against destructive collectivism and to see through the cynical green cloak hiding its red core. Instead, they validated the incoherent, fanciful screeching. In their attempt to win a few elections, the conservatives kicked open the Pandora’s Box that formed the Teals. Affluent blue-ribbon seats never would have waded into this sick game without their friends in politics and business insisting it was ‘the right thing to do’. Those voters believed it without evidence, adopting Tealism as though it were a fashion trend.
Worse, these allegedly conservative politicians are still taking advice from the same green-eyed merchants of misery – the end result of which is Matt Kean.
As for the Nationals, there is no saving a party that sides with an international bureaucracy with policies devoted to the destruction of family agriculture. What farmer is going to vote for a local member who nods along while the United Nations demands herd culling to ‘meet Net Zero goals’? What food grower is going to sit by while Australia tries out the Sri Lankan approach to farming?
2023 is a new year, and if the conservatives want to have both an election future and a clean, environmentally friendly Australia – they have to apologise for adopting Net Zero garbage and immediately start a new course toward a genuinely sustainable future (that means, a future where Australians can afford to heat their homes and buy food for their kids).
Neither communism nor fascism does the environment any favours. Australia was clean and green when it was free of grifting activists rolling around in the hay of big business.
We absolutely should embrace conservation, but that is not going to happen if we impoverish, oppress, and starve Australians in pursuit of a Net Zero utopia. Utopias, by definition, do not exist.
Save the planet – ditch environmentalism.
https://spectator.com.au/2022/12/the-crimes-of-eco-fascism/
************************************************************If a race-based constitutional body is endorsed at next year’s referendum, it would send a permanent message that Australia is no longer committed to equal rights for all
Anthony Albanese’s warning this week about the “corrosive, insidious forces” attacking democracy needs to be taken seriously, particularly by those seeking a constitutional entity to represent Indigenous Australians.
The Prime Minister’s remarks, delivered at the Woodford Folk Festival, are a reminder about the ease with which well-meaning initiatives can damage the principles that hold this nation together.
In the same speech in which Albanese defended democracy he recommitted himself to a policy that would threaten democratic principles: establishing a race-based constitutional body to be known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
If this is endorsed at next year’s referendum, it would send a permanent message that this country is no longer committed to equal rights for all.
The Prime Minister’s assessment of the challenge confronting democracy is consistent with the danger identified by the Washington-based Freedom House in its 2022 report on the state of democracy. Equality of citizenship takes pride of place at the start of the Freedom House report: “Around the world, the enemies of liberal democracy – a form of self-government in which human rights are recognised and every individual is entitled to equal treatment under law – are accelerating their attacks.”
The first step to defeating this threat is to recognise it when it is staring you in the face. That is only way to describe the proposed Indigenous voice to parliament.
The second step requires an understanding of what needs to be defended. And that means accepting that democracy means much more than regular elections and majority rule. According to Freedom House: “In its ideal form, it is a governing system based on the will and consent of the governed, institutions that are accountable to all citizens, adherence to the rule of law, and respect for human rights …
“It creates a level playing field so that all people, no matter the circumstances of their birth or background, can enjoy the universal human rights to which they are entitled and participate in politics and governance,” the Freedom House report says.
The threat to these principles from the Indigenous voice is real.
Equality of citizenship is ignored in the plan for the voice that has been drawn up by Tom Calma and Marcia Langton. This plan is outlined in a report that was endorsed by Albanese in parliament on November 30.
If enacted, some people, based on their race, would have two methods of influencing public policy: through their representatives in parliament and their representatives on the voice.
The Calma-Langton plan also falls short when assessed on the requirement for accountability.
The voice would not be accountable to ordinary indigenous voters but would answer to local and regional “voices”.
These unknown groups would decide who would sit on the national voice and whether any of its 24 members would be elected or merely selected. This is the system that the Calma-Langton report proposes: “The national voice membership would be structurally linked to the local and regional voices by the local and regional voices within each jurisdiction collectively selecting national voice members.
“Secondary options under this model may be used if Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of the relevant jurisdiction agree.
“An election or expression of interest process may still be held for a jurisdiction if Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in those areas prefer. This decision would be made with the relevant local and regional voices,” the report says.
The great strength of Albanese’s address was the implicit recognition that he has a responsibility not merely to govern, but to strengthen democracy for the next generation. “Our democracy is precious, something we have carefully grown and nurtured from one generation to the next. One of our core responsibilities is to make it stronger …” he said.
But this is matched by his failure to recognise that an indigenous voice, as proposed by the Calma-Langton report, would have a permanent corrosive impact on democracy.
It would divide the nation into those with additional influence over public policy and those without. It would not be limited to indigenous affairs.
“Restricting the scope of the advice function would diminish the role of the national voice as a national broadbased representative body,” the Calma-Langton report says.
Resentment at such inequitable treatment would be inevitable. Indigenous people would also have cause for complaint.
An institution of state, purporting to represent indigenous people, would have no direct accountability to ordinary indigenous people, stripping it of democratic legitimacy.
Despite these shortcomings, Albanese asserted at Woodford that the push for a “yes” vote at the referendum was gaining momentum. If that is the case, why are the government’s constitutional experts exploring other approaches?
On December 12 Linda Burney, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, posted a document on her website that outlined a summary of advice from the federal government’s constitutional experts group. Their advice concerned the draft constitutional amendment that would create the voice.
Without elaboration, the document says: “The expert group agreed that there could be – and gave consideration to – different policy and process approaches to key features of the draft constitutional amendment.”
Really? What are these key features that the experts believe are worth “different policy and process approaches”.
And why do the experts believe different approaches were worth exploring? Is there some weakness in the form of words unveiled by Albanese at the Garma festival in July? When does the government propose to share the expert group’s views with the community? Before or after the referendum?
This is not the way to secure informed consent for a change to the Constitution.
************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************
Evelyn Rae, a conservative Australian political commentator
Margo Robbie -- a beautiful australian
My son Joe at ANU
One of the happiest pictures ever -- Cleo Smith, aged 4
No comments:
Post a Comment