What’s happening in Alice Springs?

A very uninformative article below. At least at the very end of the article they screwed up enough courage to utter the word "indigenous". The problem is in fact an Aboriginal one, with young Aborigines being particularly defiant, with their skin colour protecting them from most police action

Whites in a position to do so are already moving out. The town will eventually become a wasteland unless vigorous police action to arrest and imprison offenders is undertaken. Aborigines are in fact easy to control. They have a horror of being separated from their community so keeping them in solitary overnight will be strongly punitive and will give them a strong reluctance to repeating that experience

Violent brawls took place on Tuesday after a group of young people attacked a local pub, the Todd Tavern. Three people have been arrested so far.

According to police, the violence began when a large group of people from the Utopia district north of Alice Springs arrived in town to commemorate the death of an 18-year-old man who was killed on March 8 when the stolen car he was travelling in rolled over.

A dramatic 12-hour night curfew for everyone under the age of eighteen will be imposed across Alice Springs after violence erupted on the streets.

The group attacked other family members in the pub, which sustained $30,000 of damage after being pelted with rocks and bricks. Another brawl broke out nearby later that evening.

The Northern Territory government has declared an emergency.

Why was a curfew announced?

The two-week curfew is designed to stop people aged under 18 gathering in the town’s CBD between 6pm and 6am.

Apart from Tuesday’s brawls, a series of violent incidents have taken place in Alice Springs in recent weeks, including on Saturday when a group of about 10 young women bashed and stripped a 16-year-old girl.

Northern Territory police will send 58 additional officers to the town. There will be no criminal penalty for breaking the curfew, police said.

Why are there calls for the federal government to be involved?
“Horrendous doesn’t cut it, but I have run out of words,” the town’s mayor, Matt Paterson, said on social media. He has previously called for federal help to tackle crime in the area.

MPs at state and federal level have expressed horror this week at the levels of violent crime in Alice Springs and called for more resources and tougher laws.

The shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, wants the federal government to deploy the defence force to maintain order, while federal Labor MP for the Alice Springs electorate of Lingiari, Marion Scrymgour, also believes extra resources are needed and was seeking to work with the NT government.

The federal government could offer to deploy defence force or Australian Federal Police personnel to assist local authorities, though this would require the co-operation of the NT government.

Most policing and public safety measures, such as alcohol restrictions, are the responsibility of the territory government.

The federal government allocated $250 million in last year’s federal budget to improve social outcomes, safety and schooling in central Australia through a series of community-led programs.

Why are crime rates so high in Alice Springs?

The town has a long-standing crime problem, and has been subjected to a series of “crime waves” involving spikes in street violence and theft, and there have been periodic calls for federal intervention in recent years.

Widespread alcohol abuse is generally seen as a leading cause, coupled with chronic social disadvantage and intergenerational trauma in Indigenous communities.

Crime rates reached a four-year low in 2023, though they were still high by national standards, after limited bans on alcohol sales were re-introduced.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/what-s-happening-in-alice-springs-20240327-p5ffrt.html

*******************************************

Government hostility to religious schools

So it appears that, after several more years of consultation, reviews and inquiries, Australia’s communities of faith will once again be disregarded, cast aside and left to fend for themselves in the land “beyond the wall”.

For those unfamiliar with the imagery, it comes from George R. R. Martin’s popular (and confronting) Game of Thrones literary series. In it, a giant ice wall is built to protect the land of Westeros from the horrors of the wintry north – primarily from the legendary dead army that is rumoured to be on the move. The only problem is that there are still humans who live beyond the wall, simple people, unaffectionately known as “Wildlings”. They are a free folk, a proud folk, with deep history, but fundamentally seen as lesser and cut off from the riches and protections of the mainland.

Such it seems is the view of religious people in Australia at this current point in history. Not only are we largely seen as backward and archaic by the elite ruling class, holding onto outdated superstitious beliefs, but also face repeated legislative raiding parties into our communities by state governments and activist media elements (who I like to refer to as the “Night’s Watch”).

This mentality is perhaps most evident when it comes to faith-based higher education, of which I run but a humble chiefdom. We are a significant minority in the Westerosian university landscape, and the inequality is increasingly blatant. Our Wildling students are forced to pay as much as four times the HECS fees of the city dwellers (despite our institutions often outperforming theirs); we have no access to the Maesters’ citadel (research funding and block grants), and our land rights are rapidly being eroded.

Take the example of the Queensland anti-discrimination bill introduced into the state’s parliament this month which strips faith-based educational institutions of the ability to employ staff who share their religious ethos and values – arguably the most oppressive laws in the land. We thought that those in the northern realms might at least have some empathy, but perhaps their long summers have made them complacent towards their devout Wildling brothers and sisters.

We have always felt, however, that we would be able to endure, particularly when those in King’s landing reassured us that we were indeed an important part of Westeros. We would be respected and left in peace, and when it came down to it, they would ensure our protection and survival. Indeed, the kings and queens on the revolving blood-splattered chair of political swords would even sometimes praise us from afar as we educated their children, looked after their poor and took care of their aged.

However, it now seems that, despite all the promises from the Iron Throne, that the protections will not be forthcoming. The Hand of the King (Australian Law Reform Commission) has advised that exemptions for religious educational institutions in the Sex Discrimination Act should be removed. Additionally, the High King of the eight kingdoms has now also indicated the Religious Discrimination Bill is to be dropped. Roughly translated, this means the Wildlings and their backwards ways are condemned. The long, dark night is upon us.

It is no shame to say that we hold a healthy fear of the army of the dead, or in our case the waves of frozen-eyed lawyers primed to overwhelm our educational institutions with litigation. We have already seen internationally that most cases of religious freedom involve educational institutions – where communities of individual Wildlings who hold the sacred values of marriage, or maleness and femaleness, or that life is sacred, are cast out to wander the wilderness.

One idea that has been discussed in our villages is that perhaps we should all just attempt to clamber back over the wall into Westeros, tell our communities to walk out and enrol in the already underfed public schools south of the wall. I anticipate, however, that there would not be enough food to feed us all.

The real question, therefore, is: does the Iron Throne and its multitude of cunning advisers genuinely want diversity in Westeros? By that I mean diversity of perspectives, cultures and opinion. Or are they seeking a monoculture which ensures every inhabitant bends the knee to whoever controls the ideology of the day?

If it is the latter, then the free folk will always be a thorn in the side of any ruler. Whatever the Wildling tribe – whether it be Christian, Islamic, Judaic or just individuals who covet the free life – the reality is that they won’t ever bend the knee to anyone who is not the True King of Westeros and beyond. Our allegiance and salvation does not rest with men and women – thank God.

All we Wildlings really pray for is the opportunity to live in peace, to educate our young people, freely associate, and serve where our help is accepted. Unfortunately, in this current wintry climate beyond the wall, that is by no means assured.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/education-has-become-game-of-thrones-and-we-the-faithful-are-cast-beyond-the-wall-20240325-p5ff4f.html

**********************************************

Rushed bill forcing hundreds of non-citizens to facilitate own deportation passes lower house

If people have been found to have no case to stay but refuse to leave what do you do?

Legislation that would force hundreds of non-citizens to facilitate their own deportation or face imprisonment has been rushed through the lower house, despite warnings it breaches human rights obligations.

The Labor government combined with Peter Dutton’s opposition shortly before question time on Tuesday to approve the new powers for the immigration minister despite howls of dissent from independents and minor parties about lack of due process.

After the bill was introduced at noon, Labor and the Coalition gagged debate after a little over two hours. The migration amendment (removals and other measures) bill passed to the Senate, where it will be considered by a two-hour inquiry hearing on Tuesday evening before possible passage on Wednesday.

The bill gives the minister the power to direct a non-citizen who is due to be deported “to do specified things necessary to facilitate their removal”, or risk a mandatory minimum sentence of one year in prison or up to five years.

The Greens, independents, Refugee Council of Australia and Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law have raised concerns that the bill applies to those who had “fast-track” assessment of their protection claims, which Labor criticised in opposition.

“We are concerned that those who do have strong claims, but have not had a fair hearing or review, will be sent back to real harm,” the Refugee Council chief executive officer, Paul Power, said.

At the Tuesday inquiry hearing, home affairs officials said the bill would apply to people whose claim for refugee protection had been finally resolved, but could not say how many were assessed by the fast track.

They said the bill would apply to at least 150 to 200 people in detention, people on bridging visa R including those released by the NZYQ high court decision, and an unspecified number on other bridging visas on a pathway to removal.

But the Greens senator David Shoebridge noted there was “no limit” to the minister using regulation to add visa classes to the list of those who can be given directions.

In parliament, the independent MP Kylea Tink argued the bill breached Australia’s obligation not to forcibly return asylum seekers to their country of persecution.

The independent MP Zoe Daniel warned that “if we make a mistake here” people may be taken back to their country of persecution and “murdered”.

The most contentious provision states that it is not a “reasonable excuse” to the new offence of refusing a direction that the person “has a genuine fear of suffering persecution or significant harm if the person were removed”.

The Human Rights Law Centre said the provisions “will apply to people who have serious and legitimate claims for protection”.

“They risk serious non-compliance with Australia’s obligations under the refugee convention as well as other international instruments.

“The bill deliberately separates families,” it said. “The minister can require a person to comply with a direction in relation to their removal, irrespective of the impact this would have on their spouse, children or other family members.”

The Greens leader, Adam Bandt, warned the bill meant “a mum who refuses to sign a passport application for her children to be returned to Iran where they have a fear of persecution could be put in jail”. He noted this carried a mandatory minimum sentence of a year in prison, in apparent breach of Labor’s platform.

In the hearing, the home affairs general counsel Clare Sharp said the “legislation doesn’t prevent [family separation] from happening, it’s possible”, but it may be a reason the minister may grant a person a visa.

In question time, Tink noted the bill can force guardians “to take actions in the aid of having their children removed from Australia”.

The immigration minister, Andrew Giles, noted the bill contains a “safeguard which deals with children”, that is, that children cannot be issued directions to facilitate their own deportation.

Giles claimed that the bill was “consistent with Australia’s human rights obligations”. In fact, the statement of compatibility said it was consistent in “most respects” but to the extent it limits human rights it does so “in order to maintain the integrity of the migration system”.

“What we’re doing with … this important piece of legislation is to fill a very significant loophole, that a small cohort of people who have no basis upon which to remain in Australia are refusing to cooperate with efforts to affect their removal.”

Giles said that those affected were “not refugees”. The bill’s explanatory memorandum says those who have “been found to engage Australia’s protection obligations … cannot be directed to interact with or be removed” to their country of persecution, but can be directed to do things to be removed to a “safe third country”.

The bill also creates a power for the government to designate another country as a “removal concern country”, which will impose a bar on new visa applications from non-citizens outside Australia who are nationals of a country that does not accept removals from Australia.

The power could affect applicants hoping to leave countries including Russia, Iran, Iraq and South Sudan.

Shoebridge said that “entire communities” in Australia face being permanently barred from visits from relatives from those countries.

The Refugee Legal executive director, David Manne, said this aspect of the bill was “discriminatory and extreme overreach”.

The shadow immigration minister, Dan Tehan, told Guardian Australia the Coalition was worried if the bill “doesn’t work as intended, it could force people to get more desperate and jump on boats” if their country is designated.

The independent senator David Pocock said it was “incredibly disappointing” that Labor was rushing the bill through, accusing the major parties of “disgraceful” treatment of independents who had raised concerns about the bill.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/26/deportation-bill-australia-rushed-passes-lower-house-immigration-detention

*********************************************

LGBTQI+ intolerance prevalent among Australian air force chaplains, inquiry told

Hardly surprising in view of what the Bible says about homosexuality. Are Christian chaplains allowed to believe their Bibles when their Bibles tell them that homosexuality is an abomination to God? (Leviticus 20:13) Asking them to defy God's word is pretty heavy

Some religious chaplains in the air force hold “unacceptable views about minority groups, women [and] LGBTQI+ persons”, posing a mental health risk to members, the royal commission into defence and veteran suicide has heard.

And part of a review commissioned by the defence department into the air force chaplaincy unit – quietly tabled as evidence to the royal commission – found tension between theology and values, “notably in relation to gender and LGBTI inclusion”.

“Some chaplains perceived other chaplains to be intolerant towards LGBTI people, women and those chaplains who express differing theological views,” the review found.

Collin Acton, a former director general of chaplaincy for the navy, said chaplains were members’ first port of call for mental health help, with other forms of help off base or harder to access.

The “vast majority [of ADF members] are ticking the ‘no religion’ box” and would be reluctant to seek support from chaplains, many of whom were ordained ministers, Acton said.

“A large portion of our workforce would prefer not to speak to a minister as their first port of call when they’re going through difficult times,” he said.

“They might be well-equipped to look after members of their own flock, but they’re under-equipped to look after the rest of the personnel.

“Religious ministers don’t sit down and have a conversation with someone about their worldview, they come with an agenda.”

Guardian Australia revealed last year that the Australian defence force as a whole has a disproportionately high number of pentecostal and evangelical chaplains. For example, there are 13 Australian Christian Churches (formerly known as Assemblies of God) chaplains for the 13 members that identify with that denomination.

Chaplains are also ADF members, so the ratio could be anywhere from one-to-one to 13-to-none, depending on how individuals identified themselves.

Meanwhile, there are five non-denominational Christian chaplains and 4,217 serving members who identify that way, a ratio of one-to-843.

In a commission hearing, the air force chief, Air Marshal Robert Chipman, said the review found there were “deep-rooted cultural challenges” within air force chaplaincy.

“And there was an unhealthy mix of theological beliefs … of a view that things that happen between chaplains should stay within chaplains,” he said.

“Both of those created conditions for an unhealthy culture to develop within chaplaincy branch and that had very significant impacts on the welfare of some of our chaplains.”

Commissioner Erin Longbottom put to Chipman that the review found “there was a conflict between faith-based values of chaplains within that branch and the requirements of a modern defence force”. Chipman agreed.

“We did find chaplains … from certain theological schools that had concerns with female chaplains or LGBTIQA chaplains and so those … beliefs that they bring as chaplains into our organisation did intersect unevenly with our Defence values,” he said.

Chipman also agreed that the review found “unacceptable views about minority groups, women, LGBTQI+ persons”.

“If there are chaplains practising in Defence that cannot abide by our values and behaviours, then they need to find somewhere else to be employed,” he said.

But Chipman said that in general the chaplains did a “phenomenal job” and “save lives every day”.

Guardian Australia has sought the air force chaplaincy review under freedom of information laws since September. The request was initially rejected because it would cause an unreasonable workload. Defence sought an extension to the deadline for a revised request to November. In February the request for “any reports or directives produced from the air force chaplaincy review” returned a directive about the implementation of the review but not the report itself.

But an executive summary of the report was provided to the royal commission.

It found there was “tension” reconciling “strong theological beliefs with Defence values”.

Chaplains dealt “‘in-house’ with unacceptable behaviour complaints within the branch” instead of through Defence processes, it found. Some complaints went without action or resolution.

“Others identified inappropriate behaviour which appeared to them to be condoned within the branch”, it found, while some chaplains said that “unacceptable or undesirable behaviour or comments falling short of unacceptable behaviour was excused within the branch where they were associated with views supported by a chaplain’s faith group but not otherwise consistent with Defence values and behaviour”.

In its submission to the royal commission, the Rationalist Society of Australia pointed to research that found almost 64% of ADF members – and 80% of new recruits – were not religious.

The society claimed chaplains viewed the position as missionary in nature and were “unable to provide non-judgmental care”, which the organisation said could stop personnel getting appropriate support.

“The religious-based nature of the capability opens the door to chaplains identifying problems as ‘sin’ and the solutions as requiring ‘repentance’.”

Acton was pivotal in a push to get a non-religious chaplains into the navy and has since pushed for secular reform despite a significant backlash from some opponents.

“I’m not saying get rid of religious chaplains, but they should be in proportion to the religious portion of our workforce,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/27/royal-commission-defence-veteran-suicide-lgbtqi-intolerance-air-force-chaplains-religion-inquiry-ntwnfb

************************************

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

***************************************