Home » Posts tagged 'Jeremy Sear'
Tag Archives: Jeremy Sear
From my appearance with a (now greying) red beard, blond hair and blue eyes its pretty obvious that I have some measure of Anglo Saxon blood in my veins, thanks to the period of English history when the Saxons were ascendant . What would people think if I were to begin to insist that I am a Saxon? Or if my children were to do the same and therefore ignoring the fact that their Opa was a Dutchman from Rotterdam? Or that their Grandmother’s family were all good Irish Catholics? Under the way of thinking of those who sued Andrew Bolt I or my children should forever be unquestioned were we to insist that we are Saxons (even though my daughter has dark hair and hazel eyes ) if my family insisting that we are Saxons is a shallow a conceit, and one that I could insist upon would it make someone a bigot if they were to question that conceit? I might certainly dislike my conceits being questioned, I might even feel offended , insulted even a bit intimidated because I have had something as fundamental as they way that I ethically self identify but would it mean that those who ask those uncomfortable questions are “bigots” ?
Yesterday in the senate our Attorney General said in answer to a question that “every Australian has the right to be a bigot” it was a nicely put argument that has got the latte sippers choking on their milky brews because I gather that many on the left are rather certain that being a bigot is about the worst thing that its possible to be unless you are an adult with an unhealthy interest in the contents of a child’s underpants which is of course just a (little) bit worse. Strangely enough Pat Condell published a vid yesterday in which bigotry is quite cleverly considered, its only a short rant so please consider this:
What Condell’s rant tells us with some clever wit is that the politically correct want to control the way that people speak , often for rather noble reasons, but noble reasons or not the result is more toxic than the intemperate speech that the PC police would have silenced. Which brings us back to the clause in the racial vilification act that the government proposes to seriously amend.
The problem that our friends from the left far too often use a claim of bigotry as a sort of universal shut up when there is a truth that they find uncomfortable, a certain learned gentleman of this blogs acquaintance was very fond of insisting that anyone who thinks that marriage should only be between one man and one woman is a bigot. Our learned friend is obviously wishing to see the standing of homosexuals in our society raised and more respected. Likewise our own Ray Dixon is extremely sensitive about the way that Muslims and Aboriginals are perceived in our society he has the most noble motives in his desire to see multiculturalism work and to ensure that those from outside the majority are do not have to endure any kind of prejudicial treatment. The problem with wanting to enforce any sort of superficial niceness is that the result is a sort of bullying that Pat Condell so eloquently rails against in his video it ends up protecting that which, in a civil society, should be free to explore ventilate and maybe reconsider. Thus when 18c was used to shut Andrew Bolt up so that the notion of self selected ethnic identity by those who sued him under 18c would remain unconsidered, our society lost a good opportunity to take a long hard look at ourselves and just what it means to have any sort of ethnic identity. Some who harshly ventilate their own feelings or beliefs of such issues may certainly meet the definition of bigotry but the way to counter such views is not with the blunt instrument of a widely cast law but by their fellows convincing them that the prejudice is both wrong and more importantly unproductive and unlikely to “win friends or influence people”.
What George Brandis was saying is an iteration of the famous Voltaire aphorism , namely “I utterly disagree with what you are saying but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it” its not a principle that we should disavow at all if we want to enjoy a truly free and pluralistic society but its a sad reflection of of friends from the left who are both very keen to be the champions of free speech and to enforce”niceness” is it any wonder that they are being called hypocrite?
So lets defend free speech and encourage niceness in social discourse because, to cite another aphorism you can lead a horse to water but you can’t force him to drink.
This is my 3000th post here at the Sandpit, isn’t it amazing just how quickly this milestone has come around?
I like to think that this blog functions at many different levels and its contents is as varied as life itself .
Its primary purpose has always been to keep me entertained and to give purpose to my morning cruise through the daily news reports and blog updates , to that end I like to write about the issue de jour that has taken my fancy as I sip on my first brew for the day. Of course I have also shared some of the events that happen in my own life when I have thought them notable enough and I have tried to do that with a little bit of wit and my rather wry sense of humour.
So for the next three thousand posts I hope to continue to provoke and stimulate thought and words from you, my dear readers, even if those thoughts and words are entirely focused on telling me that I have got it wrong in the most fundamental ways! Sometimes I even get feedback affirming that what I have said is correct, frankly either response pleases me though naturally the later has a somewhat sweeter effect on the palette.
When I need a laugh there is nothing more Jolly than checking out the “environment” section of the Guardian where you can be sure to fine the latest in environmental Corporal Jones (Vale, Clive Dunn) impersonations:
Now there are a couple of really major and naive assumptions in this rather silly piece not the least of which is the fact that the judiciary does not have the powers imagined by the author in the first place, secondly even if they did getting members of the legal profession to all agree about something is rather like herding cats (strangely quite few lawyers are cat lovers) thirdly the argument is profoundly undemocratic and it denies the people the right to chose their own governments and to have those governments do their bidding. Finally it reveals that inner totalitarian that seems to live within the heart of every Greens supporter. Yep its the perfect pick me up for a conservative on this bright and sunny November morning.
- Dad’s Army actor Clive Dunn dies (bbc.co.uk)
Its one of life’s great ironies that so many of the Greens come from the more affluent strata of our society and that many of them have enjoyed the fruits of private education yet their party has been fiercely opposed to any contribution to private schooling from the public purse, Maybe its because they feel guilt about their histories personal privilege and seek some sort of socialist atonement by becoming such fervent advocates for public schooling. One can only speculate about how the Greens supporters will react to the party now deciding to soften their position on education funding in the wake of their trouncing in state and territory elections:
Personally I think we are seeing a rather desperate rearrangement of the deckchairs on the party liner and those of us who are happy to see this party of religious zealotry about “climate change” and deep left ideology brought low think that there may be a better way:
After-all don’t those pesky Greens believe in composting and recycling?
Its called democracy Jeremy and it works. in any event you and the other pro Gay marriage activists should have known that this whole campaign was nothing more than a smokescreen to help distract the public from the incompetence of the Gillard government.
Originally posted on An Onymous Lefty:
98 names on a list of shame that will embarrass not only all our descendants, but theirs in particular:
About exactly the reverse of how Australians, based on any recent polls on the issue, have asked their representatives to vote.
Shame to Ms Gillard, Mr Abbott, Mr Rudd – and my former local MP, Mike Symon, who repeatedly refused to meet with me to discuss marriage equality because he’s a gutless wonder who doesn’t deserve to hold the marginal seat he does.
Marriage equality will still happen within the next decade – it’s inevitable. The issue is simply not going away until there is full equality. There is no way now that people will settle for less. There is no victory for the discrimination side (short of Australia falling into a post-apocalyptic nightmarish theocratic state) that can last.
Enjoy your brief success in making gay people live under a couple…
View original 12 more words
Although I am not a Christian I do believe in social redemption and when it comes to juveniles who commit crimes I am as ready as anyone to give them a shot at turning around their lives and hopefully becoming worthwhile citizens who make our a better society. However how many times should we be willing to allow juveniles the benefit of anonymity when they have faced the courts? Frankly does anyone think that the chances of someone who has offended often enough to serve five periods of detention before they reach their majority actually turning their behaviour around are very high? Sadly I don’t think that the chances are measurable. to be honest.
So I am entirely unimpressed by the so called “civil liberties” arguments put against the naming of juvenile repeat offenders when they come before the courts. Its time that the bleeding hearts stop thinking that there is no such thing as a “bad” child. There certainly are individuals who begin their criminal careers at an early age and they are destined to a life of crime and that they will be immune to any attempts to “reform” them. Now while I readily admit that these individuals may well come from situations of abuse and social despair but there has to be a point at which society’s need to be protected from their aberrant and abhorrent behaviour out weighs the very small possibility that they may be redeemed.
It may be arbitrary but “three strikes and you will be named” seems to be a place to start. If a young offender commits two crimes that result in periods of detention then their next offence should lose them any right to have their names and images suppressed.
It probably won’t surprise anyone that our learned friend has come out fighting for the right of juveniles to be treated very softly by the courts even when they are clearly repeat offenders
Here’s their latest effort:
Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie wants all juvenile offenders to be publicly named when they attend court, unless a judge orders otherwise.
Currently children can only be identified when a judge deems the case warrants naming.
Wait, what? Does Bleijie not understand that the reason for emphasising rehabilitation over deterrence with young people is that their brains aren’t fully formed and the clear evidence is that deterrence is far less effective than programs to redirect their lives? That giving them a criminal history early on simply prevents them from ever having a hope of doing something else with their lives?
Any realist would not make the mistake of thinking that someone who has established a pattern of repeated offending by the time they are an adolescent is extremely unlikely to be reformable or that they will ever do anything else with their lives. Our learned friend think that even with a chance of them being rehabilitated at an immeasurably low level we should still pretend that they can be “saved” ? Name them and then if they keep their noses clean for a decade then let them “forget” about their record as we do here in Queensland.
Mr Bleijie says most children who appear in court are repeat offenders and naming them could force them to take responsibility for their actions.
“A lot of young repeat offenders who know that the reporters and journalists can’t report names, come out of court smiling and living among their communities and the communities ought to have a right to know,” he said.
“And also if there’s a little bit of community pressure put on these young people, perhaps it will actually deter these young people from committing these crimes in the future.”
Actually, you blithering idiot, that’s exactly the way to turn young, impressionable people into lifelong criminals. Young people committing crimes are more likely to respond to severe censure by defiantly identifying with criminal peers. It takes maturity to learn to evaluate risk properly and it takes maturity to persevere through difficult circumstances.
I think the person who is blithering here is our learned friend if he really thinks that a juvenile who has been repeatedly before the courts and had several spells in juvenile detention has not already become a lifelong criminal. Further the fact that they have repeatedly failed to respond to the modest ” censure” of the juvenile justice system should tell him that his preferred option is not working for those repeat offenders .
Completely destroying a kid’s life if they don’t make decisions like a rational adult is incredibly counterproductive.
How many chances does he want to give these young toe rags? Surely its good sense to draw a line at a certain number of times that these offenders should be treated with leniency when they come before the courts? A clear expectation that they have to show at least some improvement in their behaviour before they are given the metaphorical slap on the wrist for any subsequent offence? our learned friend surely can be so naive that he believes that every one of these repeat offenders can be reformed?
First Robert Clark in Victoria, now Bleijie in Queensland. What is it with right-wing Attorneys-General and a pigheaded bloody-minded determination to stomp about in a field they clearly barely understand, dismantling systems that have been developed for a good reason, refusing to listen to experts and making matters worse?
Ah maybe there is a clue here in his conclusion; its his arrogance that anyone from outside the lawyers club should dare to have an opinion about justice and the role of the law in our society. One does not have to be a lawyer to understand that just because there is a “good reason” for a particular system it does not mean that it actaully works. The idea of treating the so called “children” as if they are redeemable when they have repeatedly demonstrated that they aren’t is leftist driven nonsense of the worst kind. But then what do you expect from our learned friend?
- Qld wants to name and shame young offenders (abc.net.au)
- The victims of crime deserve swift justice (telegraph.co.uk)
- It’s So Juvenile: Court Of Appeals Of Minnesota Finds An Extended-Jurisdiction Juvenile Adjudication Not Covered By Rule 609(d) (lawprofessors.typepad.com)
- When Should Juvenile Offenders Receive Life Sentences? (learning.blogs.nytimes.com)
- Juvenile Offenders Sentenced To Life Can Face Harsher Treatment Than Adults: Report (huffingtonpost.com)