rs to be a racially motivated hate crime. You haven’t heard about it because the victim was a white police officer and the alleged gunman a black man.
AFL administrators are dismayed that Adam Goodes was once again booeed in Melbourne. On this occasion St Kilda supporters were identified as ‘the face of racism’ in Australia. An AFL spokesperson told XYZ that the game’s leading body are aghast – ‘we’ve tried summary execution and even ritual disemboweling… I don’t know how much more Medieval we can get.’ The well placed administrator, who spoke to us on the condition of anonymity, indicated that it is likely further games featuring Adam Goodes will be played with no crowd present at all, to protect the Swans champion from any further fan inflicted trauma.
Source: Goodes booed by Victorian crowd
Whether they are tangible or intangible, made of brick or razor wire, or are nothing more than a uniformed clerk sitting behind a desk at passport control, walls exist to monitor the flow of people from one sovereign nation to another. A nation that has lost control of its borders, like some parts of Somalia, Syria and Iraq, loses, as a consequence, at least some of its sovereignty, being unable to effectively control the flow of people and of things, in and out of its territory. This is not a concept that came into being with the rise of the nation state. In ancient Rome, one of the largest and most important tasks of the legionaries were keeping the borders secure. When this was achieved, the citizens of Rome enjoyed periods of peace and relative prosperity. When it could not be achieved, there was fear, sometimes panic, and ultimately, the sack and fall of Rome itself, and with it, the Empire.
We have heard much about walls, borders, and border control in recent times. A few years ago the island nation of Australia sought, under a new government, to secure its seaborne borders, with a strong response to people smuggling that has worked, stopping the flow of people (thousands at a time), and preventing numerous deaths by drowning at sea. In response, the current government has been more strongly and hysterically criticised than the previous one ever was, despite the fact the previous government had lost control of the borders with disastrous policies that resulted in large numbers of people stuck for lengthy periods of time in overflowing immigration detention centres and hundreds, and possibly thousands, of deaths at sea.
Over the weekend a joint task force proposed to conduct random visa checks on the streets of Melbourne. This act of merely upholding and enforcing the law brought feral students from their campuses to the centre of the city to burn the national flag and indulge in other random acts of confected outrage. In Europe, the crisis created by the flow of people across the Balkans and the borderless Schengen area, some fleeing wars in the Middle East, but others simply looking for a better life, has resulted in one nation, Hungary, building a razor wire wall across its southern border. Whilst there is no doubt many of those displaced persons moving across the European continent are desperate and genuinely fleeing violent fanatics like ISIS, that the vast majority are willing to pass through several other European States to gather at Calais, hoping for a passage to England, shows that it is not all about fleeing to safety.
The fact is, a sovereign nation must have a border, and the border must be defined, and policed. A state that has lost control of its borders is a failed state. The immigration crisis currently gripping the world is complex and tragic, and does require a response borne of generosity and compassion, especially from the wealthier nations of the West. But the answer is not an open border. No sovereign nation could countenance simply opening its border and declining to check passports. The answer to the immigration crisis just cannot be ‘get here any way you can and come right in’! Yet this is, remarkably, not dissimilar to the sort of naïve commentary offered by assorted activists, Greens politicians, and other would be do-gooders and God botherers.
As much as we in the West can, and should assist, with this global problem of immense proportions, an open border would actually create more disaster, more suffering, and more anguish, for more people, effecting, as it would, both the immigrants and those already settled in the nation rendered borderless. Where would thousands of eager migrants, pouring across an open border and into a place like Hungary, Australia, or England, live and work? How would the hospital system, the welfare system, the social housing system, and the education system (and we could go on) cope with a sudden and dramatic influx of people in large numbers? What would be the social consequences?
The fact is, a sovereign nation needs walls, and a secure border, and must enforce its sovereignty as necessary, to protect its own people and guard its own national interest. To fail to do so, is to become a failed state. The Hungarian government, as harsh as it may sound, are doing what is necessary, in constructing a wall of razor wire to secure its borders, as are the British government in securing its cross Channel border, and as are the Australian government in turning back boats carrying asylum seekers. The reality is, we need walls, and so we live in a word in which there are walls.
Let’s give the last words to Colonel Jessop (from the movie A Few Good Men):
“Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don’t want the truth, because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like “honor”, “code”, “loyalty”. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said “thank you”, and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to!”
In this status quo, to be criticised is a backhanded compliment. To be lauded is a stamp of vileness.
That’s why the ABC provides the Zaky Mallahs with a voice and a platform.
That is why The XYZ has risen up to diametrically oppose this perversion.
The XYZ asks you to talk about this with your friends. We ask you to share with us examples of the untouchable idiots.
A parting thought from Yeats:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
XYZ
Here is a little economic lesson of the old Keynesian economic school: During a “boom cycle”, the government may find the cost of projects very high. So, it should sit on the sidelines, thus “cooling” the cost of labor, and banking some surpluses. Then, when the economic cycle is turning down, the government should wade in with some of that surplus cash and smooth the cycle by doing some projects.
Such as the East-West freeway link in Melbourne…
XYZ
Right now journalists and media commentators all over the world are expressing their shock, anger and outrage at the prison sentences handed to three Al Jazeera journalists in Egypt. And rightly so. This is a palpable injustice. The sentencing Judge, seemingly without a sense of irony, found the three guilty of “spreading false reports.” Whole newspapers would need to close if there were comparable laws for the British press. The supreme irony, however, is this. Many of those outraged at this Egyptian decision are the very same journalists and commentators who were, very recently, accusing the Australian Prime Minister of muzzling the ABC, of being a danger to democracy, and imperiling free speech, over his reaction to the epic ABC stuff up was the Zaky Mallah affair. Ignorant of their own hyperbole, these journalists are now lamenting the train wreck that is the Egyptian justice system, and observing in real time what an attack on free speech actually looks like. Source: Al Jazeera retrial: Journalists Peter Greste, Mohammed Fahmy, Baher Mohamed sentenced to at least three years’ jail – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
f the Australian flag provides us with an answer. Following the teaching of Marx and his disciples, the uncomfortable fact is it’s the Left’s goal to destroy society as we know it, in order to build a new society and utopia.
The left and Islamism are united by their burning hatred of Christianity and Western Culture, and their goal to destroy both. The left, clouded by it’s idealism naively sees Islam as a tool, and seeks to harness it as a weapon in its own plan.
Make no mistake, the left and Islam are completely and utterly at odds. Islamic leaders are quite open about their despising of the modern, progressive West, yet are happy to use the left as useful idiots in the meantime. If Islam ever manages to conquer the West, their leftists allies will be the first to have their heads separated from the rest of their bodies.
The left is not as open about the fact that their values are so at odds with that of Islam, but my hunch is with the loosening and lubrication of a few drinks after socialist alternative meetings, their true feelings and distaste of Islam is exposed. Should the left manage to overthrow Western civilisation, they will then have to contend with the spectre of Islam, a battle which they will be utterly unable to win.
The alliance between the left and Islamism can be summed up with the old proverb that ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend.’ 
In social discourse today one often hears and encounters the concept of pride in relation to particular groups of people – gay pride, black pride, indigenous pride, and so on. In my home town of Melbourne, Trades Hall, that physical epicentre of old fashioned Socialism, displays an enormous rainbow banner with the word ‘pride’ in large white letters at the foot, this a reference to the fashionable cause of the day – gay marriage. The irrelevant types who inhabit the building, and use its façade as a billboard, are want also to display banners abusing the current Prime Minister as ‘hopeless’ or ‘ignorant,’ apparently oblivious to the fact that the majority of the workers whom they claim to represent actually voted for him and his party at the last general election. But we digress… fashionable political messages are de rigour these days for the cultural elitists who inhabit large buildings. Even the city’s Anglican cathedral can be used as a billboard in this way (‘Let’s fully welcome refugees’ is its slogan, this after church leaders accused the then opposition party of stooping to the use of slogans in the context of the immigration debate). Hypocrisy and misuse of architecture aside, driving past the rainbow banner did put the word pride front of mind for me, and I came to this realisation – I’m proud of something too, I’m proud of my culture and tradition, of my ethnicity and my religion, and I‘m proud of the way in which all of that, so important to my own sense of identity and personhood, is so bound up with that somewhat eccentric island thousands of miles from my own home and country. Paraphrasing Shakespeare, I speak of that “blessed plot,” that “sacred realm,” that England. Is that okay, I wondered, as I passed the pride banner at Trades Hall? Would the self loathing creatures who inhabit that building ever connect the word pride with a symbol of British culture and tradition, or with their own country’s flag? Even more alarming, I mused, would the city’s Anglican cathedral do so? Or dare to do so?
I will never forget the day I arrived in London for the very first time. I was nearing forty and this was my first excursion to Europa. For many of my countrymen (Australians), a few years in “the old dart” pouring beers in a pub is all but a rite of passage. For me, however, life had intervened. In my twenties and thirties I was numbered among the working poor, struggling to make ends meet with a young family in a housing commission (council house) suburb, with travel all but a distant, seemingly impossible, dream; even as my friends and contemporaries went on bus tours through the continent and told stories of getting pissed in Belgium and waking up in Austria, shared exotic tales of visits to the live sex shows and whores of Amsterdam, and, of course, bragged about the cricket, or some other prominent example of Australian sporting prowess , in bars all over Britain. Two decades later, and I finally made it to that “blessed plot,” that “sacred realm,” and I have been back numerous times since. Each time I feel as I did that very first time, as I emerged from the underground at Baker Street, and walked out into the blistering cold, and onto the Marylebone Road, and experienced an overwhelming sensation of feeling at home and among friends, of an all but tangible closeness to the people, the history, and the traditions that had shaped me as a person, and my country of origin as a nation, and made us who and what we are.
I felt then, and continue to feel now, a strong sense of connection to that blessed plot, that real, that island, so many thousands of miles from my home here in far away Australia. Most Australians are not willing to express it quite like this, but I suspect many of us feel it nonetheless – that powerful attraction that lures us in large numbers, in our younger years, to live and work in the UK; that sense of great satisfaction we get from beating the poms in the Ashes (cricket for the uninitiated). It’s an intense rivalry, but a chivalrous one too, rather like the sort of good natured competiveness among cousins over a backyard hit of cricket on Christmas Day. For an Australian, there’s an intuitive sense of familiarity when travelling through England’s green and pleasant land, a sense of belonging and of togetherness, that has been ingrained by the common history and institutions that has shaped our two nation, even if the differences are apparent too, and perhaps growing. Whatever the future may hold, however, the past cannot be undone or changed. From England came the social and philosophical ideals of the Enlightenment, the instruments of government (the Westminster system), the rule of law, and two thousand years of history and tradition that stamped itself indelibly on the great southern land. As much as some Australians seek to deny it, all of this is still very much with us today, and remains visibly apparent in our symbols of nationhood, not least the Australian flag, which bears the Union Jack in the top left corner, and in the continuing status of the British Monarch as the Australian head of State.
It seems one can be proud of just about anything in Australia today, certainly in a public way, with one exception – that of our English history and origins. To express pride in this invites, at best, ridicule, and at worse, accusations of racism, if not fascism. In social discourse, to be an out and proud gay man is fine, but to affirm the importance of the traditional family attracts strong opposition and has social commentators and grim faced ‘experts’ warning of dire consequences among ‘excluded’ and, apparently easily offended ‘minorities.’ To express pride in one’s ethnic or racial origins is not only fine, but to be celebrated, and often loudly applauded by earnest types keen to express their enthusiasm for multiculturalism for fear of being branded as a racist – unless, of course, you are white, for a person of Anglo-Saxon background to express ‘white pride’ in any way is not only not okay, but hazardous in all sorts of ways. To be proud of one’s religion is fine, if it is Islam, for this will have sympathetic media columnists wearing the hijab as a show of solidarity with you, but to be proud of one’s religion if of the Christian variety, is not okay, especially if Roman Catholicism, this will attract howls of derision and accusations of paedophilia. Even to express pride in the achievements of one’s own nation, at this moment in Australian national life, habitually attracts a chorus of embittered malcontents and offence takers, eager to reply with well rehearsed accusations about celebrating “invasion day,” of imperialistic oppression, capitalist wars, and the mistreatment of asylum seekers.
But I am proud, nonetheless. Proud of the inheritance of English tradition, both in a personal way, for myself as a descendent, generations ago, of English lineage; and I’m proud in a corporate way, of the manner in which the history and tradition of that blessed plot and that sacred realm called England has shaped the Commonwealth of Australia. In saying this, I do not claim, or believe, that any one race, ethnicity, religion or culture is superior, in any way, to any other. But I do claim to be an Australian of white, Anglo-Saxon, English background, confessing the Christian faith, and deeply grateful for the history, the traditions, the ideas and ideals, and the institutions and organisations, bequeathed to this nation by virtue of its origins as a part of the British Empire, expressed now in its continuing membership among the Commonwealth of Nations.
And I’m proud of that. Very proud.
“Research by other organizations has shown that teens who frequently eat family dinners with their parents are less likely than other teens to have sex at young ages, get into fights or be suspended from school, and are at lower risk for thoughts of suicide. Frequent family dining is also correlated with doing well in school and developing healthy eating habits. This pattern holds true regardless of a teen’s sex, family structure, and family socioeconomic level.” (See Leanne Ely’s Power of Dinner)Cornell University has summed up the research in this area by saying that “the take away message” (no pun intended I’m sure!) “is that youth who engage in more frequent family meals tend to have lower depressive symptoms.” And the University of Florida, Solutions department has said, “family dinners may require effort in planning, but the benefits in mental and physical health to you and your family are more than worth it.” Now it’s true that this evidence doesn’t necessarily require that any roast meat actually be present, and Boethius notes that perhaps the politically-correct alternative is a vegan, soy or nut roast, with purple heirloom carrots and spindly organic beans or some such. I’ve been there, eaten that – and I know that this sort of ‘look at how ethical my meal is’ (& don’t forget to upload it to Instagram) approach has some kind of appeal – but here I’ll double down and tell you it’s the wrong kind of appeal. Because that approach is helplessly self-centered and places a priority on one’s own political needs & preferences, rather than on drawing the family together as a unit. I’ll try and locate the right kind of approach for you by telling you about my mother. This week was my mother’s birthday and my brother invited her out to dinner at a restaurant – but my mother has vetoed him. She said, “I was thinking we might all come over and have dinner here. I could cook a roast.” Then she followed with, “And that way we could all be together.” Sure, we would have ‘all been together’ at a restaurant too, but knowing the time, effort and love that goes into my mother’s roasts, I know which offer more warms my heart. So peel the carrots and cut the spuds, because there’s never been a better time to tuck in. Roast dinners are good for everyone (with the possible exception of the chook). And while I guess we could ‘feast’ on roasted tofu (I did it for years), my hunch is in most families that just won’t draw the kids (or the husband!) to the table – and surely drawing us all to the family table for connection and relationship is the central reason why the tradition of the Sunday Roast deserves to be maintained.
Sunday roast would seem to be a tradition of impeccable normality for most Australians. Gathering around the table on what was once the Lord’s Day, for an oven baked portion of meat of some brand accompanied by overdone vegies would be the stuff of most childhoods, and occupy a place in the homes and lives of many still today. Indeed, it is so in the household of Boethius, wherein, come Sunday, the tribe who have departed the familial home return for their meat and gravy, whilst passages from Kant, Hegel and Nietzsche are read and debated with much jocularity.
But predictably, the NIMBY socialists of the inner city rose up en pushbike to demand “rail not roads,” – as if there were any ever disagreement that “por qué no los dos. ” That this could be the start of a grand project of transforming Melbourne’s transport system into one of the best and most extensive of the 21st century, appeared lost on that mob. Imagine a Melbourne in which all its major freeways and tollways are connected, seamlessly, just like nearly every other modern city in the world of comparable size. And in addition, a Melbourne where all its rail lines, which currently run like spokes to the CBD, were all connected by two or three circles of rail.
But lacking in any vision of foresight, the North Fitzroy foodies subjected us to starry eyed fantasies of the Doncaster rail line – a great idea, but how is it going to help me get a fridge from Braybrook to Blackburn? An industrial dispute with Victoria’s ambos led to the downfall of the Victorian Liberal government after just one term, but it didn’t stop Labor making the specious argument that it had won the mandate to cancel the contract for the East-West link.
In place of a plan which would see forced acquisitions of houses to make way for a tunnel to remove the congestion on Hoddle Street at its source, the Labor government has proposed a plan to force the acquisition of houses to ease the congestion of Hoddle Street by making room for all the traffic downstream, perhaps because they know that the residents down that way are less organised. Meanwhile, the most direct route between the Eastern Freeway, CityLink and the Princess Freeway continues to struggle, via multiple major traffic intersections, down from three lanes to two, and then two lanes to one!
It is a testament to the patience and forbearance of motorists that they do no hop out of their stationary cars to start dismantling, brick by brick, the beautiful period homes of Brunswick and Fitzroy, or start hacking away at the old gums which line the road through Royal Park, to help set the foundation to widen the road to at least two lanes, from its current, ludicrous, one.
And the Andrews Labor government, which promised “rail not roads,” will take the rest of us by surprise if it manages to achieve either. I encourage you all to meditate on this while you sit in your cars over the next few days, weeks, or perhaps months, as Melbourne’s transport system goes on strike. When labor proposes to bring rail not roads, what it really means is strikes, not action.
It must be stated that the conversation has moved on, indeed, the world has moved on, from the issue of the death penalty for transgressors of political correctness, and frankly, we can’t believe we’re still having this conversation. Polls show that the question that really matters to people today is the manner in which people guilty of hate speech should be executed.
The firing squad, electric chair, and lethal injection, even with the prelude of public humiliation, have all been rejected as too clean, too quick, and essentially, soft on crime. Thus we have had to delve back into our cultural past to find more cruel and entertaining methods of extermination. Drawing by horses and crucifixion were both proposed, but rejected as inappropriate, the former for its exploitation of animals, the latter for its cultural insensitivity to new Australians. So, a consensus concluded to reinstate the Medieval art of public disembowelling. Initial feedback suggests that this should greatly improve the quality of pre-match entertainment at future Grand Finals.
We hope you enjoy the new XYZ Viewer Poll, dealing with the much more important subject of deciding which Star Wars movie was the best.
Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.
“You need to be aware of the conditions of your visa; if you commit visa fraud you should know it’s only a matter of time before you’re caught out.”Even though this is really just about ensuring that our travel and immigration laws are followed, that statement has of course gotten human rights activists all worked up; and according to the Guardian, “the operation – codenamed ‘Operation Fortitude’ – raised fears of police using racial profiling to justify stopping people and that it risked a ‘militarisation’ of the immigration system.” The people at GetUp!, predictably have come up with this hysterical meme in
response, and are telling people to ‘make sure they know their rights’.
When addressing matters such as immigration, we need to get back to basics. Australia is a sovereign nation and has the right to regulate the flow of immigration, and to decide who ultimately comes here. Every nation has this right. I also firmly believe that as a nation we should be compassionate to those who are fleeing violence and persecution, and be welcoming to refugees.
However, GetUp! and it’s ilk seems to use every opportunity and legal loophole and technicality to undermine the very sovereignty of Australia, which protects the freedoms and culture that makes it desirable a destination for migrants and also a safe haven for refugees.
“If a person, or group of people, assembled in your place of work, shoving offensive material in your face, howling at you as a chorus, blocking you as you attempted to walk from one place to another, you’d have the opportunity to charge them with harassment, or bullying.”
So wrote Guardian columnist Van (Vanessa?) Badham (we’re unsure why she truncates her first name, but whatever!) Our spirits rose upon reading these fine words. At last, common sense in the The Guardian on industrial relations. Surely this was a description of a standard union picket line, shouting down strike breakers as “scabs,” hurling abuse at management (“the bosses”), and blocking people going about their daily routines and those just trying to make a dollar and put bread on the table at home.
Continued Van:
“It’s a recognition that underscores a consensus value in Australia: that people have the right to go about their business as individuals without harassment, abuse or the malicious interference of others. It’s an underlying principle of civil law that the state, police and judiciary have the obligation to protect the citizenry from harm.”
We could not agree more. So true. Summon a choir and sing the Hallelujah chorus! Although Van’s column is actually about protesters outside abortion clinics, we think it applies equally to union picket lines, and other tactics of bullying and intimidation regularly employed by unionists. We’re sure Van would too, in the spirit of her own article. After all, we’re all equal before the law. Aren’t we?
Source: Abortion clinic or health clinic, there is no real argument against safe access for women | Van Badham | Comment is free | The Guardian
Two weeks ago XYZ published a strongly worded, short reflection on the shocking circumstances surrounding the death of young and vivacious Masa Vukotic, who’s killer, it has now been revealed, had a long record of violence against women, and was out on bail at time he killed Masa.
This is what we said then – and which we say again today!
A humbly offered, and very sincere, observation for the Royal Commission into family violence, and to the many working hard to prevent violence against women in our community. An institution of particular danger to women, and many others, in our society, is staring you in the face. It is called the justice system. It features court processes stacked in favour of the perpetrator not the victim, morally bankrupt defence lawyers, and benches occupied by pissweak magistrates and judges, who for too long have let violent offenders, with very long histories of crimes against women, out on bail or parole, or handed them wholly inadequate sentences, enabling men who should have been in prison to walk the streets in search of their next innocent victim. Masa Vukotic is one among many young women who should be alive today, and tragically is not, because the justice system is a disgrace.
Source: Masa Vukotic’s killer Sean Price out on bail at time of attack with lengthy history of violence – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
te and earnestly grown up” pages of said publication, appears under the intriguing heading “I never know how a man is going to react to my past – and my genitalia.” Not a dilemma, I must say, I have ever known in life.
Whereas young people on a first date once agonised over a fleeting kiss at the door before saying goodnight, according to The Guardian, love and relationships are much more complicated these days. So confused, in fact, is the romantic landscape out there, one cannot even be sure one’s date has genitals matching their apparent gender. This is, seemingly, something so commonplace it ought to be established on the first date, lest one’s partner feel somewhat let down by the absence of a body part s/he were hoping for.
The XYZ developed out of dissatisfaction with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and other mainstream media. We are an independent media organisation focused on principles of classical liberalism and cultural libertarianism.
One summary of classical liberalism is, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
However, in our Australian context we might simply say, “It’s a free country.” This common bond is broadly libertarian (see http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/24/rise-of-the-cultural-libertarians/), and we boldly defend free expression, free markets, free assembly etc. against cultural authoritarians, particularly those on the left who demand safe spaces for the ‘marginalised,’ but who also destroy the lives and livelihoods of those who transgress what these cultural elites deem acceptable.
We also stand in opposition to cultural Marxism, which seeks to bring about socialism by attacking political, cultural, social, and religious norms and institutions – dismantling our national identity and the foundations of Western civilisation. In contrast to those who try to shut down conversation on these fundamental issues, The XYZ intentionally generates and invites open discussion and debate.
The XYZ hosts a range of opinions, with the distinguishing feature that we want everyone to be free, prosperous and happy. Most of us once held, or in some ways still hold, “progressive” views but are appalled by the left’s top-down prescriptions, and rather want to see the government out of the economy, and to stop telling people how to live their lives.
XYZ articles, whether satire or serious, confidently reinforce Western values such as freedom, critique cultural Marxism, and ridicule the hypocrisy of cultural authoritarians. And in this day when Islam, which posed an existential threat to Western Civilisation for ~1300 years has reawakened and declared war on us, now is a critical time to fight for the values and virtues of Western Civilisation.
logy.
Senator Rice was at pains to correct the myth that children are the biological product of a mother and a father.
“We need to correct this crude myth that children result from the sexual activity of a man and a woman. We all know that this cannot be the case because all relationships are equal, and we need to be teaching our children the truth that babies are delivered from the Stork, at the request of the parent/s. To maintain otherwise is discriminatory and might even suggest that some relationships are more natural than others.”
Following up on this statement, the Greens propose that an education program be rolled out to all school children to correct the myths about where babies come from.
It’s the XYZ.
instrumental in our nation’s development. The decision by Newcastle Council represents an undermining (no pun intended) of Newcastle’s identity and livelihood.
Minerals Council of Australia coal chief Greg Evans, was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald’s article as stating: “stock in trade of the divestment activists is to get public attention through empty symbolism.
“You would expect the City of Newcastle council had more pressing business, such as supporting local economic activity, rather than participating in such a pointless sham.”
Indeed.
No doubt coal will be replaced as an energy source over the coming decades, but in the meantime, it is a foundational energy source for the world, not least the world’s poorest people.
The hysteria of climate change, which has captivated our political classes, and has driven the push for fossil fuel divestment, provides a solution that whilst ‘feels good’, is worse than the problem.