Very good speech form Tony Abbott
recommended viewing Comrades
As most people will now know the spill motion is on. I’m a little sad about this but if this means that the current government can improve its standings with the public. One thing that we can expect if there is a change of leader is that we won’t see the sort of bad grace that Rudd bought to his party.
You can bet that the Liberal Party phones will be in meltdown in Canberra over the weekend
Like you Yale I still Like Abbott despite his recent gafes and bad calls but looking to the bigger picture if the party were to change leader it would in one fell swoop undermine the forces of darkness who have placed ally of their hatred on to Abbott personally rather than on the party in general. I am undecided on who would be better beyond believing that Turnbull would be a bad choice. One thing that I think we can expect is that if there was a change in the leadership Abbot is not the sort of man who would white ant the government the way that Rudd did during the last dark age when Labor was in power.
Cheers Comrade Yale
Originally posted on The Red And The Blue:
THE PUBLIC DECLARATION by three backbench MPs against the leadership of Prime Minister Tony Abbott marks the point at which simply keeping a lid on ructions inside the government has ceased to be an option; in the best interests of the Liberal Party, it is now incumbent upon the Prime Minister to bring disquiet over his leadership to a head. It is regrettable his best option to avoid this development has been deliberately eschewed for months.
Government unity should, in the ordinary course of events, be something that should be striven for and maintained at almost any cost; the adage that “disunity is death” in politics is a potent one, and occupies a prominent place in the political rule book with good reason.
Yet unity, when contrived around structures that are rotten to their very core, is a counterintuitive and self-destructive endeavour at best.
The public declaration last night by two disgruntled…
View original 1,431 more words
On the Radio this morning is the cheerful news that Peter Greste has been released and deported from Egypt I am sure that his family will be very pleased indeed, I am as well even though I don’t share the view that seem prevalent among the usual suspect that some one who is a journalist is automatically some kind of secular saint. Anyway that is an all’s well that ends well situation.
Now to events closer to home and something that has left me feeling profoundly depressed, Yep the state election its a terrible result for Queensland that will see the incompetent Labor party back into government. That said we live in a democracy and that means I have to accept the result with good grace, fucking hell though its hard with that idiot of a woman in charge. The irony is that for all of the rhetoric about the reforms made by the LNP over the last three years, things like the thinning of the bloated public service and other fiscal savings will not be reversed so its, once again going to be a case of the LNP wearing the pain of necessary reforms and the ALP will be able to get the benefits gratis.
I feel nothing but dread for governance of our great state of Queensland over the next three years… On the upside though It will be far easier to attack the government’s inevitable incompetence than it has been to defend the missteps of the previous administration.
Sadly Pat is 110% correct here
“Australian government appeals are neither heroic nor heartfelt; Canberra is merely trying to save their own ‘subject bodies’ from the firing squad, while slowly disposing of ‘abject bodies’ it does not want through inhumane detention centres or returning them to foreign regimes that will probably finish the job for them,” Mr Marthinus said in an opinion piece in The Jakarta Post.
The impact of the executions on bilateral relations is coming under intense scrutiny in the English-speaking press in Jakarta, with conjecture that the decision to drop plans to waive visa requirements for Australian visitors to Indonesia could also be related.
However, this has been denied by the government and is also considered unlikely by migration agents.
And Bali’s Governor Made Mangku Pastika has said he would not like to see the execution take place on Bali because it could hurt the island’s public image.
I wonder If I am alone in feeling somewhat embarrassed by the excessive gnashing of teeth over the pending execution off these two scumbags? There is no doubt that they did the crime, being caught red handed with the heroin strapped to their bodies takes care of that, these two were the ringleaders of the scheme so they deserve a harsher punishment than the other seven idiots. that make up the “Bali nine”gang. That said I am sure that the usual suspects will whine and posture about how capital punishment is wrong in principle. Frankly its not something that I believe. there are crimes that clearly deserve a capital sanction multiple murder, or murder in the name of a vile ideology are obvious to me, as is the repeated sexual abuse 0f children, when it comes to drug dealers its a little less clear. Personally I tend to think that some drugs are worse than others and that those who deal in opiates, cocaine or crystal Meth are worse than those who sell a bit of Ganga.
So in the not too distant future Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan will have their stroll in the jungle , be tied to a post and shot dead this little black duck won’t shed a single tear nor will most of my fellow Ausies either. The usual suspects on the other hand will have an almost orgasmic out pouring of leftist angst all because these men happen to Australian citizens…
The sooner they are shot the sooner they can be utterly forgotten because they certainly do not deserve to be remembered.
I like women, I have more female friends than friends who are male but that does not mean that I am ignorant of what they used to call “feminine whiles”, you know the way that women are so adept and getting what they want from the men in their lives. So with that in mind I offer to the sand pit’s readers this ratehr amusing Vid from Diana Davidson:
I was quite taken by Helen Dale’s argument here:
Helen Dale 23 January 11:08
“I hate to break it to you, but we are not all Charlie.
The reason is simple: Charlie Hebdo was consistent in its support for freedom of speech. Its editors were not just targeted by Islamists: they’d been hauled through the French courts (where they won) and were figures of hate to both the French extreme right and conservative Catholics.
Charlie Hebdo had been out on a limb for years, true to the freewheeling anti-clericalism that owes its origins to the protests of 1968. Charb, its editor, refused to buckle.
The rest of us – with the partial exception of the United States – have buckled. There are widespread restrictions on speech, in France and elsewhere. Australia has 18C, among many others.
“Hate speech” laws are frequently based on the supposition that hate speech has the same effect as the common law offence of incitement. Incitement requires a demonstrable effect on the intended audience. Burning a cross on a black family’s front lawn, for example, amounts to incitement to commit acts of violence against that family.
It’s also important to remember hate speech laws are akin to the definition of “advocating terrorism” in the national security legislation. Because – as George Brandis told me last year – incitement is difficult to prove, governments look for other ways to restrict speech. “Advocating terrorism” in the Foreign Fighters legislation removes the requirement for demonstrable impact.
At the heart of criminalising “hate speech” is an empirical claim: that what an individual consumes in the media has a direct effect on his or her subsequent behaviour. That is, words will lead directly to deeds.
But because this is untrue – playing Grand Theft Auto and watching porn hasn’t led to an epidemic of car thefts and sexual assault – justifications for laws such as 18C and hate speech laws now turn on the notion that offence harms “dignity” and “inclusion”. Obviously, dignity and inclusion can’t be measured, while crime rates can.
Support for dignity and inclusion produces weird arguments – white people are not supposed to satirise minorities, for example. Sometimes, legislation is used – bluntly – to define what is funny.
Allowing what is “hateful” or “offensive” to be defined subjectively, as 18C does – and not according to the law’s usual objective standard (the reasonable person) – means “offence” is in the eye of the beholder. It enables people who are vexatious litigants and professional victims to complain about comments the rest of us would laugh off.
Tim Wilson, Australia’s Freedom Commissioner, has already argued18C ensures an Australian Charlie Hebdo would be litigated to death. Despite the fact 18C refers only to race, Tony Abbott’s justification for backing down on repeal was to preserve “national unity” with Australia’s Muslim community. This conflates religion with race in the crudest possible way.
This conflation is what leads to the coining of nonsense terms such as “Islamophobia”. “Homophobia” actually means something, because being homosexual is an inherent characteristic, not a choice. Islam is an idea, and it is perfectly reasonable to be afraid of an idea.
18C is far from the only potential constraint. The equivalent Victorian legislation explicitly takes in religion as well as race. A smart lawyer would bring suit in Victoria, because Charlie Hebdo would probably be caught there.
The confusion of religion for race is so pervasive – even in the US, where people ought to know better – that French people across the political spectrum have been forced to point out – while France does indeed have “hate speech” laws – they are used to protect characteristics that people cannot change, such as being black or gay.
“We do not conflate religion and race. We are the country of Voltaire and Diderot: religion is fair game” French left radical Olivier Tonneau wrote in response to repeated claims that attacking Muhammad or Islam was racist.
Apart from being unsupported by anything approaching evidence, hate speech laws have serious unintended consequences. Recently, British polling firm YouGov surveyed British attitudes to Muslims and discovered Britons see Islam negatively, but are unwilling to say so.
In other words, governments and law enforcement have to rely on anonymised polls conducted by private firms to find out what people really think.
It’s not maintainable to have partial freedom of speech. The fact that most Western countries now do makes what little freedom we still have harder to defend. Muslims who respect arguments for free speech can’t help but notice our inconsistencies. Anyone who thinks they don’t notice is guilty of treating people who profess a certain faith like children.
We won’t be Charlie until we have purged 18C, its state-based equivalents and the illiberal national security legislation from the nation’s statute books.”
So what do my readers think about this?