Australian Politics
‘Climate denial’ ad pulled from "The Australian" after being labelled ‘deceptive’
Coverage of this bit of censorship appears to have been censored. I can find no mention of it other than in the article below from the Green/Left "Guardian", sometimes derisively known as the "Grauniad". Censoring censorship is of course truly troubling.
The Graham Readfearn mentioned below is a long time climate alarmist. The Institute of Public Affairs is a respectable conservative think tank. The Climate Study Group appears to be a loose grouping among IPA staffers. The Ad Standards community panel "is the centre piece of the advertising self-regulatory system."
The panel appears to have found the advertisements in error on the basis of a reference by Redfearn to "attribution studies" Attribution studies are proof of causation that you have when you have no proof of causation. They fly in the face of the most basic principles of science and logic. The only way of proving cause known to science is "before and after" studies but we have only one globe and no ability to time-travel so we cannot in principle prove what causes global warming
In 1972 I had an analytical philosophy paper on causation published in an academic journal so I have some awareness of the issues here. I found no fault with Humes's idea of constant conjunction but to have constant conjunction you have to have many examples of the event and that is precisely what we do not have with global warming
http://jonjayray.com/cause.html
It is of course much easier to prove a theory wrong than it is to prove it right. As Einstein once observed, it would take only one predictive failure of his theory to prove it wrong. And there have been many failures to correlate in the history of climate change research. So what the Guardian called a "Gish gallop" (a series of faulty claims) would more accurately be called a gallop of disproof. It is a pity that the Ad Standards body ignored so many facts in favour of a nonsensical theorySo the foundation of the conclusion that the IPA was wrong is built on sand. There was no scientific evidence to say that the IPA erred and much to say that they were right. Their withdrawal of their ads would appear to be a courtesy to a voluntary body probably underaken to avoid a legal ban
For almost a decade, "The Australian" has been running “climate science denial” ads from the Climate Study Group (CSG) that claim burning fossil fuels is hunky dory and even necessary for life on Earth.
But the latest ad has been “discontinued” after Ad Standards found it contained misleading or deceptive environmental information.
Way back in 2015, Graham Readfearn (then at DeSmog, now Guardian Australia’s environment reporter) was writing about CSG’s advertisements (and their links to the Institute of Public Affairs).
Last year, Readfearn took a forensic look at some of their claims about atmospheric carbon concentration.
Someone complained to Ad Standards that CSG had “published climate denial [and] disinformation in The Australian” and that it was “indistinguishable from editorial content”.
In its judgment, the Ad Standards community panel found the ad was sufficiently marked as an ad, but “considered that the advertisement was making the environmental claim that fossil fuels can be used without concern that they will have a negative impact on the environment”.
It found the claim was “misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive” and therefore breached the environmental code.
CSG, in its defence, dished out a gish gallop of claims – essentially repeating the claims it had initially made. But in the end it acquiesced and said it would discontinue the ad.
***************************************
Federal government to spend $161million on an Australia-wide gun register after two police officers were murdered on a remote property
What alot of tokenistic nonsense! Canada tried this and had to give it up as ineffective. And Australia already has strict gun control laws
The Albanese government is set to establish a National Firearms Register - a new countrywide database designed to bolster community safety - following the tragic Wieambilla shootings in 2022.
In the federal budget, scheduled for May 14, $161.3million will be invested over four years to establish the register, with state and territory firearms management systems upgraded to be compliant with the new Commonwealth database.
The commitment follows an agreement by national cabinet in December, though the funding arrangements had become a sticking point for the reform to progress.
It is understood that South Australia, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and the ACT could each require as much as $30million to connect to a new federal database.
The tragedy at Wieambilla, Queensland in December 2022 was the catalyst to making the reform, after it was originally recommended following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre response.
On April 28, 1996 Martin Bryant killed 35 people in Port Arthur, Tasmania, and another 23 people were injured. At the time, it was considered one of the world's worst massacre.
Byrant is serving 35 life sentences and more than a thousand additional years' jail without parole.
Constables Rachel McCrow and Matthew Arnold, and neighbour Alan Dawe were shot and killed by three Christian extremists, Gareth, Nathaniel and Stacey Train, at their remote property in Wieambilla, 300km to Brisbane's west.
One of the perpetrators was a licensed firearms holder.
The register will allow law enforcement to assess firearms risks by providing frontline police officers across the country with near real-time information on firearms, parts and owners.
Firearms information will also be linked to other relevant police and government information, including data from the National Criminal Intelligence System.
'Once established, police will know where firearms are, who owns them, and what other risks to the community and police may exist,' a statement released by Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13354197/Albanese-government-national-gun-register.html
**************************************************Do Fact-checkers Check The Facts?
Government should never have the power to determine what is or is not the truth, let alone silence dissenting views. However, what would be even worse is if unelected, unaccountable activists had this power instead.
But that is what the federal government is contemplating under its proposed internet censorship laws.
In private correspondence, released under a Freedom of Information request last year, Federal Communications Minister Michelle Rowland let slip to the Prime Minister how the government’s proposed ‘misinformation’ Bill would operate. The proposed law would empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority to impose huge fines on social media companies that do not censor ‘misinformation’ to the federal government’s satisfaction.
Minister Rowland confirmed that ‘fact-checking’ organisations are expected to play a central role in this new regime, so much so that Acma will be given the power to request information from ‘other persons such as fact-checkers and third-party platform contractors to monitor compliance with misinformation codes, standards and digital platform rules’. Rowland informed the Prime Minister that ‘the draft bill would give effect to this suggested change’.
The Minister has given the game away. It won’t be the social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube or X charged with the censoring. It won’t even be the faceless public servants at Acma. No, it will be these so-called ‘fact-checkers’.
Today, there are three main, self-appointed organisations in Australia claiming ‘fact-checker’ status; RMIT FactLab, AAP FactCheck, and RMIT ABC Fact Check. These organisations already have arrangements with social media companies in which they investigate ‘misinformation’ and if they render a ‘false’ verdict, the social media platforms will censor that content.
But based on Minister Rowland’s comments, ‘fact-checkers’ will in the future play an even more prominent role, as the enforcers of the government’s internet censorship laws. They, in effect, will be given the power of law to be the official arbiters of truth.
These ‘fact-checkers’ are signatories to a code of principles requiring them to be fair and neutral. This includes that they ‘not concentrate their fact-checking unduly on any one side’ of a debate. Last year, the Institute of Public Affairs investigated how well they complied with this requirement during the Voice referendum campaign. Not surprisingly, they failed miserably.
The IPA reviewed 187 fact-checking investigations which related to the Voice referendum, an enormous 91 per cent (i.e. 170) of which concerned the No campaign. 99 per cent of these were deemed ‘false’. Barely half of the other 17 investigations (concerning the Yes campaign) were deemed ‘false’. RMIT FactLab was the standout, worst offender with every one of its 41 investigations concerning the No campaign.
The IPA expanded its research to other policy areas, which revealed the Voice was not some aberration but, rather, confirmed the left-wing bias of these organisations is systemic and entrenched.
In respect to fact-checks about Australian politicians, there have been 249 investigations conducted over the past five years. 65 per cent of these investigations could be seen as favourable to the political left. Only 35 per cent could be seen as favourable to the political right. A 30 per cent margin of difference, in political terms, is enormous.
The research also looked at ‘fact checks’ into Covid-19, and climate change and energy policy. Of the 534 investigations into claims about Covid-19, a staggering 94 per cent targeted critics of official government responses, with just 6 per cent targeting advocates of the official line. So much for holding government to account!
Climate change and energy were no better. Of 153 investigations, 81 per cent were targeted against critics of the official climate change and energy agenda (that is, man-made carbon emissions are harming the planet, and we need to abolish fossil fuels and mandate alternatives in response). Every single one of these were deemed ‘false’, misleading, or missing context. Yet, remarkably, of the 20 investigations conducted by AAP FactCheck into advocates of the climate change agenda, 76 per cent were deemed ‘true’.
Again, RMIT FactLab was the worst. All of its Covid-19 and climate change investigations – 100 per cent – were targeted at critics. A level of consensus any North Korean dictator could be proud of!
It is clear Australia’s so-called, and self-appointed, fact-checkers have no interest in shining a spotlight on official government policies. Rather, they aim to attack critics and amplify official narratives.
This is not journalism. These are some of the most hotly debated and controversial areas of public policy, yet apparently to ‘fact-checkers’ only one side is worthy of investigation.
Predictably, the left-wing media have leapt to the defence of the ‘fact checkers’. An article that appeared in Crikey on 9 April claims that debunking a conspiracy theory doesn’t favour the political left or right but benefits the whole community. Miraculously, the enrichment of society so graciously offered by the ‘fact-checkers’ just so happens to involve targeting politicians on the political right, compared to the left, to the tune of two to one.
It is no surprise that left-wing journalists will attack any criticisms of ‘fact-checkers’. The utopia of the elite class – one that celebrates the modern media, academia and politics – is a world run by experts. Whether dictating where you can move during the Covid-19 pandemic, or deciding what can be said on the internet, the experts know best. With zero self-awareness, the same Crikey article claims, ‘Everything is a team sport to the outlets and politicians waging a war on fact-checkers in which “truth” becomes a trophy to be awarded rather than a fact to be established’.
But hang on, isn’t it the political left which is advocating for a system in which a select group decides on what is, or is not, ‘misinformation’ for the purpose of censoring alternative viewpoints?
Of course, the defenders of ‘fact checking’ would feel differently if these organisations were populated by conservatives. But, proving yet again the modern left is beyond parody, the author of the Crikey article once worked for AAP Fact Check!
These will be the people who determine what is true or false, and what you can or cannot say on social media.
It will, of course, be mainstream Australians who are silenced online if the federal government gets its way.
https://ipa.org.au/research/rights-and-freedoms/do-fact-checkers-check-the-facts
**************************************************Supreme Court Win for Police Constable Who Refused the COVID-19 Jab
A senior constable in Victoria who faced charges for not taking the COVID-19 vaccine has won his battle in a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court. This decision could set a precedent for others impacted by vaccine mandates in the state and around Australia.
The case centered on whether the requirement to provide evidence of vaccination status necessitated receiving a dose of the COVID-19 vaccine.
Constable Simon Peter Shearer had been charged with a breach of discipline for failing to comply with the COVID-19 vaccination requirements outlined in the Victoria Police Manual.
The officer’s decision not to receive any dose of the COVID-19 vaccine by Aug. 16, 2022, led to an internal disciplinary inquiry initiated by the Victorian Police chief commissioner.
However, Victorian Supreme Court Justice Michael McDonald concluded this charge was unjust and should be quashed.
“The plaintiff’s failure to receive a dose of COVID-19 vaccine by 16 August 2022 did not constitute a breach of the Victorian Police Manual,” Judge McDonald said.
“Consequently, the DIO [disciplinary inquiry officer] did not have power to reprimand the plaintiff for a breach of discipline.”
In addition, the judge said the plaintiff was denied procedural fairness for two reasons.
“First, the charge did not provide adequate notice of the case the plaintiff was required to meet,” Judge McDonald found.
“Second, the DIO failed to disclose to the plaintiff issues critical to his decision to find the charge proven.”
Constable Shearer, who had been working in the legal services department of Victoria Police as a lawyer since 2013, had a medical exemption for vaccine requirements due to Graves’ disease, an autoimmune condition impacting the thyroid.
According to court documents, this exemption expired in 2021.
Further, the constable went on long service leave from December 2021 to July 2022. In July 2022, Victoria’s chief police commissioner issued a new policy manual on vaccine requirements.
The constable argued that he was not required to provide his vaccination status to the police or be vaccinated to perform his duties in order to return to work.
However, on September 21, 2022, he was charged with a breach of discipline for failing to comply with the vaccine requirements of the Victorian Police Manual.
The judge has now nullified the charge, and both parties will have the opportunity to make submissions on costs.
“My provisional view is that the defendant should pay plaintiff’s costs on a standard basis, to be taxed in default of agreement,” the judge stated.
Case ‘Reaffirms Our Faith in the Justice System’: Lawyer
Principal lawyer Irene Chrisopoulidis described the result as a significant win for the plaintiff and the individuals and families affected by such policies. She said many of these individuals were unfairly and unjustly treated during one of the most challenging times in our history.
“The lives of these employees and their families, impacted by such organisational policies and decisions, resulted in lifelong effects,” Ms. Chrisopoulidis added in a LinkedIn post.
“This case not only reaffirms our faith in the justice system, it reflects the courageous and tenacious character it takes to stand up for your rights in pursuing justice. It has been our honour to represent the Plaintiff in this matter.”
************************************
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