Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Posts tagged 'society' (Page 2)

Tag Archives: society

Poofter penguins, lesbian lions, gay gibbons and David Attenborough

I have watched far too many nature documentaries during the course of my life and these days if I am clicking through the TV offerings and  land on any offerings from David Attenborough you would not see my finger hit the next button because it happens with out a seconds delay.  That said I do appreciate the quality of the footage and the insights into the natural world its just that I think there is only so much of that stuff that anyone can watch in their life time  before their brain explodes form shear boredom. Now we have a Gay activist whining that David Attenborough is “ignoring” instances of homosexuality in nature:

Click for link

Click for link

Obviously this stems from a desire by many homosexuals to argue against the description of their sexuality as “unnatural”. To this end they scour studies of animal behaviour to find instances of same sex couplings  and “gay” sexual activity.  Of course there are examples of  this aberrant behaviour in other species  but as it can not produce progeny it is biologically entirely pointless. That does not mean that we can, by extension, deride and dismiss human homosexuality. Such behaviour does seem to be in the nature of a small percentage of our species and I personally don’t see what all the fuss is about as long as we respect the rights of all of our individuals to share their genitalia with any other consenting adult regardless of their gender it does not matter to me how “natural” or ” unnatural” such behaviour is. Maybe its time for Gay  activists like Brett Mills to get over himself and stop trying to force all of society  to think the same way that he does about sexuality.

Cheers Comrades

Who cares about poofter penguins?

Who cares about poofter penguins?


The difference between spin and reality

Having children is probably the easiest when human beings are first capable of conceiving,  however that also tends to coincide with a time when the ambitious are focused upon their careers. Personally I find it no real surprise that in our society there is a a large cohort of women who find themselves in the unenviable position of seeking to conceive when they are well past the peak of their fertility, its just the legacy of feminist ideology that has told our women and girls that their careers are more important than having children.

Interestingly there are two stories in today’s media offerings from Murdoch and Fairfax respectively  that made me think about this matter today.

Firstly there is the story about the way that Tony Abbott supported Christopher Pyne and his wife through their battle to conceive their children through IVF:

click for source

click for source

Secondly there is the piece in Fairfax which is a great example of that which so many of my friends from the left constantly complain about when they see stories which  begin with “the leader of the opposition says”   but on this occasion its a case of  “a government minister says”

click for source

click for source

The Labor party of course hate the idea that Tony Abbott could possibly be anything other than a absolute and abject slave to his Catholic faith, the idea that he could be a man who applies personal discretion to the way that he considers the teachings of the church on matters like IVF is something that the government wants to hide from the people. It serves the purposes of this desperate government far better that Abbott can be portrayed as an unthinking peon of Rome rather than a modern man who makes his own choices on issues of fertility and sexual morality.

The ALP feminista  girls club does not do so well once its myths and legends are exposed to the cold hard light of truth but who is surprised? They are fighting a desperate rear guard defence of a party that not only faces defeat but near obliteration at the next federal election so clearly they are trying their darnedest to ensure that they make truth the first casualty of the battle to retain the Lodge but the truth is not as easy to kill as they had hoped.

Cheers Comrades


“Why I Deactivated My Twitter – the racism, classism, sexism, discrimination From the Left is overwhelming”

I love to stir the possum as many of my regular readers will appreciate so when I read the post I quote below I thought it an interesting piece,even though at over 2000 words it is a bit long and repetitive I just loved the way that the author has seen the light about the brutal and rather mindless tribalism of Twitter. Of course I have a presence on twitter but its really just a vehicle to promote this humble blog and I am thankful that I don’t have a dumb phone that has enslaved me to its inanities. Anyway the poor sweet thing who runs the blog took exception to me citing her piece via a re-blog and she has played silly buggers by editing the post to make the claim that I am stealing her work, of course that is entirely untrue and it demonstrates that she understands WordPress about as well as she understood twitter. Anyway please read both the quote below and all of the post it comes from.

Why I Deactivated My Twitter – the racism, classism, sexism, discrimination From the Left is overwhelming

Having recently witnessed a group of self-identified Lefties team up with a Right-wing Murdoch media personality to gang up on an ALP defender, to the point, they were all suddenly trained psychologists who could diagnose all sorts of mental instabilities from 140 characters, I realised that Left wing or Right wing, twitter is just for trolling.

Yes, both sides really are as bad as each other.

While we seek comfort in conforming to the opinions of others, not risking having a different opinion, as long as we tweet-nice to the biggest bully on the block, we are safe.

Be different, and you risk being a victim, like the smallest gazelle in the herd, cornered by the lions and hunted down and eaten.

Run with the herd, say what everyone else says, conform, don’t think, don’t be different – and you too just may be accepted for who you are.

My people. My community. Your opinions are welcome… until we decide they’re not.

I have witnessed Lefties swarm, hunt in packs, gang up on one person they don’t like, round-up a posse, and bitch and bitch and bitch, attack, attack, snipe until their victim sets their account to private, then they move on to target all the people who follow their victim, all based on whether they prefer Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard as prime minister, or their religion or postcode or sexuality – or something else just as trivial and insignificant.

I see Lefties all day making appallingly sexist misogynist vile comments about women. But apparently I’m supposed to laugh, because they come from a Leftie.

Um, no, voting for the ALP or Greens doesn’t somehow magically make your sexism and misogyny evaporate.

I see the most vile hateful inaccurate comments about Muslims (just tweet “Muslims deserve the same rights as all other Australians” or similar, and watch the racism and religiousism hit you thick and fast), apparently saying outrageous comments like “let’s get all the facts before we accuse people based solely on their assumed religion” is enough to warrant a torrent of abuse. Who knew that “all Muslims should be shot” – seems some Lefties on twitter seem to think so.

I have witnessed some viscous bitter on-going sagas, based on who is following who else… What is this like, you know, High school? I won’t be your friend if you are friends with that person?


This is the comment I attached to my original re-blog:

I must say that I enjoyed this post immensely because I just love it when someone see’s the light of truth about social media, especially when that social media is Twitter. If ever users of a social media have been deluded it has to been the lefties who have taken to Twitter like pigs to shit and the whole thing so reminds me of the blogging environment Pre-twitter. Now that the idiots have migrated to twitter it is surely entirely sensible to leave it to them. To think that the author of this blog banned me from commenting at her blog even though my comments were polite and on topic, Ah well its good to see her learn none the less.

Cheers Comrades

Dreaming of a new online normal


In the seven years that I have been playing the blogging game I have seen some big changes, well the fact that broadband has become the ubiquitous norm rather than the exception has been a biggie. Now we bloggers can put up a far more attractive page with graphics and many photos without concern that it will be too slow to load or despised by readers because it uses too much of their download allowance. I have seen the rise of twitter and the migration to that platform of many of the snark artists that used to haunt the bloggosphere. This has also seen the decline in a vast number of blogs which existed only to accommodate the eternally mean and vicious, well good riddance to bad rubbish, such loses are not mourned in this part of cyber space. Now we are finally beginning to see an end to the online free for all that is just so beloved of the trolls and scum bags. The law is beginning to hold online miscreants responsible for what they say and do which is a trend that I am pretty certain will continue and which will help to create a new normal where one will have to be as decent online as we are expected to be in the real world.

click for source

click for source

It may well take a while for the lawmakers to fully address these sorts of issues, heck it may even take the suicide of a few more victims of cyber-bullies (although I hope not) but there is no doubt in my mind that the tide has turned against a totally unregulated online environment and we can only hope that the right balance can be struck between adequate disincentives for despicable behaviour and the maintenance of our rights to free expression online.
Cheers Comrades


Three strikes and you will be named! Name and shame child offenders proposed in Queensland

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.

Cheers Comrades


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?

Fairfax falls to demographic prejudice, not technology

The post below by  James Adams is copied from Online Opinion under the terms of its creative commons Licence

These journalists avoid telling the truth

They avoid telling the stories they don’t agree with. A father murdering his children is re-hashed in the media for years, but when mothers do the same thing (as is more likely), their stories sink without trace.

These journalists shun and eventually expel those with differing views. They live in Sydney’s expensive inner-suburbs (the ‘white ghetto’, where very few non-Anglos live) and yet support free immigration.

They live in an increasingly small world, where lies circulate and become true. They believe lies like:

  • 10% of men are gay (2%),
  • fathers abuse their children(mothers are much more likely to abuse their kids. Of male abusers, almost none are real fathers. However step-fathers and ‘mummies-new-boyfriends’ are quite probable – that’s why divorce puts kids at risk).
  • Christianity causes most wars (actually demographics or technology does),
  • Men kept women from voting(in most democracies, men and women got it at the same time: (Same time: Australia and NZ and most women in the UK. Only one year after men in Canada. Young adult women had to wait only ten years in the UK).
  • Women have been oppressed by men for centuries(but strangely women were never conscripted into the slaughter of war, killed in dangerous factories etc).

The new religion

They are evangelical zealots who passionately promote their beliefs. No amount of fact will make them question their faith and they all worship the same God. Like any religion, there are many denominations… Nasty Feminism, Failed Socialism, Self-hate Multiculturalism, Irrational Greenie-ism, evangelical Gay-rights.

And like any religion, they hate other religions. They are slowly winning their unremitting campaign against Christianity.

There are few young feminists!

Over the last weeks, the media has been full of journalists telling us how terrible it is that Fairfax is sacking 1,900 staff and their papers shrunk to tabloid size.

Naturally I fell terrible for the innocent workers, especially the printing workers who are losing their jobs and are going to struggle to find new jobsin their skilled areas

But many of the journalists had it coming. They are finally getting what has been overdue for a long time. The “Melbourne Middle-Age” and the “Sydney Moaning Feminist” have been stuck in some kind of 1960′s baby-boomer feminist socialist delusion since, well, since the 1960′s. As society has moved on, they haven’t. Australians became increasingly unwilling to read their rants.

Old, bigoted and out-of-touch

I worked for Fairfax for most of this century. Let me tell you a story to illustrate Fairfax culture.

Walking to bistro for lunch I found it full of old people. I wondered if it was a senior citizen’s club tour or something?

But they weren’t quite old enough; they were dressed in expensive hippy clothing (and there is a hypocrisy); there was the occasional younger person… then I realised! It was a journalists union meeting. Wall-to-wall grey-hairs and chrome-domes!

The journalists at Fairfax are like an episode of Grumpy Old Feminists! What are old people like? They complain, at length, about the immoral youth of today! That today’s youth (anybody under 45!) don’t have their values!

While the internet is one factor in the collapse of Fairfax, the other reason is simply that people don’t want to have this dogma shoved down their throats anymore. Fewer and fewer Australians want to read their rants!

So here’s the good news. Many of these issues are like Feminism are baby-boomer issues. And they are old now. There are few young feminists!

There are few young feminists because war has been well-and-truly won and women now tend to feel sorry for men. People just don’t believe their lies anymore.

Men are Australians largest minority group, downtrodden and humbled. If you look at Australian statistics, there is only one area where men are better-off than women.


  • live 7 years longer, get the pension younger,
  • get a better education, two thirds of Uni students are women,
  • under the age of 35 they earn more than men (then many choose to stop working or choose to have a pleasant work-life balance as a mum)
  • Get softer sentences for the same crime as a man
  • Almost never have their children stolen by divorce lawyers, and usually keep the house
  • Are supported by vast armies of government-funded professional feminists supporting ‘women’s issues’


  • Are stuck doing the Dirty, Dangerous, Distant and Disrespected men’s jobs
  • Are far more likely to suffer from preventable illness
  • Smoke more, drink more, use more drugs
  • Suicide maybe nine-times more often than women
  • Are far more likely to be a victim of violence

The exception is that men are less likely to suffer domestic abuse than women. Never-the-less, that statistic is not accurate as there are many incentives that boost the statistics on the size of this problem.

For example, claiming domestic violence is literally a get-out-if-jail-free card for women. If she is unscrupulous enough, her false allegations can get free accommodation, free lawyers, generous pension, possession of the house and kids from divorce and she can hide selfishness behind victimhood). Obviously I am not saying that all women would do this, I’m just pointing out that there are terrible incentives for bad behaviour.

Demographics is destiny

As former treasurer Peter Costello said, demographics is destiny and our society is being run by the large baby-boomer cohort. Because of their shear size, the baby boomers have dominated social change. From railing against issues like the Vietnam War and crooners like Bing Crosby, the baby boomers took over from the old men with their horn-rimmed glasses.

By shear numbers, they have dominated the public mood and left poor Gen x (named ‘x’ because of it’s invisibility) ignored and even Gen ‘Y’ have yet to find a voice, with the green shots of a radical conservative idealism, led by the Tea Party, Christians, the Promise Keepers and the Fatherhood and Families movement. These idealists are competing against a ‘teacher’s pet’ version of left/green attitudes, who have accepted without question the dogma of their baby-boomer schoolteachers and journalists.

They have been helped along in their dominance by their raft of approaches that has decimated marriage rates and birth-rates, effectively shrinking the competition from younger generations. As Economist Harry Deny postulates, if it wasn’t caused, the GFC and Sovereign Debt Crisis are certainly being exacerbated by baby boomer demographics. Too many oldies approaching retirement with their pensions and spiralling healthcare, coupled by a dearth of younger adults to replace them and pay the taxes needed.

Well now it’s the Baby Boomer’s turn to finally lose control and shuffle off into senility and obscurity.

ABC for oldies

So now Fairfax is going down. Bit-by-bit, the journalists will have nobody to pay them. At the next Federal election, the ALP will go down too and so other professional feminists will find it increasingly hard to maintain their billions of dollars in funding. That leaves the ABC, increasingly alone.

Consciousness raising

Once our conservative idealists, the Christian Churches, the Fatherhood and Families Movement get some funding, even a tiny percentage of the funding that the feminists get, they will have to get honest!

But at last, the writing is on the wall! The zealots of the left are baby-boomers. They are increasingly going to loose their stranglehold over public debate. Then we’ll be able to protect children from divorce and abuse, and a whole raft of other issues that will make the world a better place.

God bothering in our schools

As an unbeliever and a good parent I don’t think that my children are likely to need the services of a school chaplain but I don’t have any strong negative feelings about there being someone employed at state schools being there to help those children who want a bit of guidance.

click for source

This is likely to be one of those rare occasions where the opposition will support the government with any necessary legislation to ensure that the chaplaincy can continue to be funded. Now like many parents I get my children coming home with some strange ideas form school but I’m big enough to understand that it in is the nature of any centralised education that our children will sometimes be taught things that are utter nonsense. I have my children opted out of the Religious Education classes and that seems to have been enough to raise two confirmed heathens but there is no escaping the influences of their believing peers. The response I give them is to point out that there are many ways to understand the world and believing in God is just one of them. Frankly I don’t get the sort of militant atheism that is frightened by people of faith that they want to exclude their children from any hint of religiosity in their education. The world is very full of religious belief and the sooner that our children understand this the better they will get on in life. In any event it is the example that we give our offspring in the way that we live our lives that has a far greater influence on the people that they will become than any number of contacts with the religious.

Those who are really concerned about the influence of religious belief in our schools should perhaps be looking at the way that our children are being indoctrinated with the tenets of a far more pernicious  misanthropic millenarian  cult, not by their school chaplains but by their science teachers, namely the belief in Anthropogenic Global Warming which sort of makes the ideas of loving each other and being caring and helpful far more preferable than developing the self loathing for humanity as is desired by the Profits of the Green religion.  Ah well what do we expect when the government is about to introduce a giant new tax on everything based entirely on its religious belief that affordable  energy is bad.

Cheers Comrades

Putting Pandora back in the marriage equality box

By Jim Wallaceposted Tuesday, 5 June 2012

Slogans such as ‘marriage equality’ and ‘equal love’ have dominated the gay marriage debate so far. But as the federal parliament inches closer to dealing with the three ‘marriage equality’ bills that are before it, we are finally beginning to see their consequences.

During the recent Senate Hearings into one of the bills, the Green’s Marriage Equality Amendment Bill, former High Court Justice Michael Kirby was asked what logical reason could be given for not extending ‘marriage equality’ to other configurations of love such as consenting polygamous and polyamorous ones.

“The question that is before the parliament at the moment is the question of equality for homosexual people,” he told the Senate.“There may be, in some future time, some other question.

The lesson in courts and in the parliament, I suggest, is that you take matters step by step.”

And it is clear by recent events that there are those who are very interested in seeing those next steps.

Last week, leaders of Australia’s polyamorous community expressed disappointment with Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young for rejecting equality for their relationships.

Hanson-Young is yet to respond to the specific question of whether the Greens will drop their support of ‘marriage for all’ and the clear expectation the bi-sexual community in particular has in their policy.

This week The Punch and SBS featured a polygamous relationship in which the participants complained of discrimination from authorities and said if it were legal they would marry.

Of course such talk is dangerous indeed for gay activists, and Rodney Croome, the campaign director for Australian Marriage Equality, felt it necessary to explain why ‘marriage equality’ did not apply to the poly communities, so as not to unhinge his own campaign.

Ironically, many of his arguments mirrored those used against same-sex marriage.

Croome says that same-sex attraction is ‘immutable’ but then tells the poly community their sexual attraction is a choice, which seems strangely at odds with his allies the Greens, who must surely treat all these sexualities equally.

Or do they now suddenly believe that we shouldn’t treat everyone’s love equally?

Certainly such intolerance from gay activists seems less than acceptable to Nikko Antalffy who recently gave a rambling defence of polyamory in a national newspaper, claiming it takes us back to our pre medieval natural desires.

But let’s be honest, they are in reality pagan desires, customs rightly long rejected, and now only contemplated by a parliament that is perhaps less esteemed than any in the country’s history. A parliament forced to consider the intolerable due only to the artificial power of the Greens.

Marriage was institutionalised to protect not only society from the nonsense of things like multiple unions, but specifically children. Unless children were involved, government would have no interest in marriage.

Neither gay nor polyamorous “marriages” could serve the interests of children. Gay marriage by definition denies a child either a mother or a father. Mother love and father love that no amount of gay-activist-dominated studies can tell a parent doesn’t matter to a child.

Croome says another reason for not extending marriage equality to polyamorous people is that it would complicate the family law system.

But in some states gay activism has already erased fathers from birth certificates and led to the nonsense of even a single man being able to get a child through surrogacy.

In Croome’s mind this level of complication to family law, not to mention to the child, is OK.

How insulting it must be to polyamorous people to be told by Croome that their love is less equal and that the ‘group dynamics’ of their relationships means they can’t have ‘marriage equality’.

He argues their relationships are less stable. So too are same-sex relationships, when compared to marriage, but try using this as an argument for man-woman marriage without being demonised.

Again, more breathtaking double standards.

Comments by polyamorous activists such as James Dominguez and his wife Rebecca, show they are deadly serious about rights for their community.

They live with Mr Dominguez’s boyfriend and Mrs Dominguez’s boyfriend and went to the trouble of lodging a submission to the Senate inquiry.

In blog comments last week, Mr Dominguez expects that the Greens will champion any future popular move to legalise poly marriage.

He says no-where in the world where same-sex marriage has been legalised has there been a push for poly marriage.

This is simply untrue. The first country to legalise same-sex marriage, Holland, now allows civil law contracts for polygamists.

In seeking to allay society’s concern of a slippery slope, activists assure us that same-sex marriage is a natural stopping point, but if nature can be brought into this argument, then surely biological marriage is the natural stopping point.

It is time to move past the slogans and consider the consequences for society and children of redefining marriage. Because clearly there is an agenda well beyond the current claim on it.

Re posted under the terms of its Creative Commons licence from Online Opinion

%d bloggers like this: