Revolt against collectivism
A lack of leadership lies behind the Australian Senate's stoush on pepper spray
By Corrine Barraclough, who has written wisely before. She even likes Mr Trump!
If politics is the robust exchange of ideas, there are certainly times when one must look beyond personalities to see the crux of what is being debated.
In the furious exchange between Sarah Hanson-Young and David Leyonhjelm many have become fixated on male versus female or civility versus offensive language. However, it strikes me that the crux of this debacle is actually about collectivism.
Whatever the specifics of the exchange in the Senate were this much we know for sure: Leyonhjelm is rejecting misandry and blanket blame being placed at the feet of all men as penance for the crimes of some.
Men as a collective gender should not, cannot and will not be blamed for the actions of criminals.
Of course, individual responsibility is at the very heart of Liberal Democrat Leyonhjelm’s belief system. It decrees that each individual is solely responsible for his or her choices and accountability sits squarely with the person rather than the community or society as a whole.
It is utterly absurd that during a time when diversity is being forced down our collective throats, gender politics is speaking in such clearly divisive language. While diversity agendas are a priority in businesses and institutions across the country gender politics clearly defines bias which gender discriminates between male and female.
No wonder there is a growing revolt against the collectivism that gender politics dictates. Make no mistake, this is not going to conveniently vanish; it will keep rearing its ugly head no matter which personality happens to personify the problem in the political arena at any given time.
Before Leyonhjelm told Hanson-Young to ‘stop shagging men’, the debate on that day in the Senate was about women’s safety. Senator Fraser Anning put forward a motion to relax the import on pepper spray or mace. ‘Access to a means of self-protection by women in particular would provide greatly increased security and confidence that they will not become just another assault, rape or murder statistic,’ Anning said. This comes after police were widely criticised for advising women to take care after the rape and murder of Eurydice Dixon in Melbourne.
The troubling coverage of Dixon’s death shone a bright and damning light on the stalemate we have arrived at in Australia regarding collective male blame.
Fierce feminists on one side say rather than telling women to take care we should be telling men not to rape. This is collectivism in its clearest form. The fembot army wants all men to step up and fix the reality of crime. Not only is that unreasonable, it’s impossible.
After Dixon’s murder it was clear to see how deeply far left activist messaging has permeated society’s narrative on ‘violence against women’.
Through the dark magic of gender politics, all women are deemed under threat from all men.
Such collectivism is a destructive and unhelpful worldview. Ultimately, this may well be what ensures feminism implodes.
The reality is, our battle in life is good versus evil rather than men versus women. In that, feminism has collectivism all wrong – and the masses are beginning to revolt.
The response to Anning’s motion in the senate came from Senator Janet Rice. ‘The last thing women in Australia need now is another man in power telling us that we are responsible for violence against us. The priority must be to eradicate men’s violence.’
Those two words, ‘men’s violence’, are commonly used when left feminists screech that it is all men’s cumulative responsibility to end crime.
Statistics are pored over, dead women are counted in the name of political point scoring, so that far left fembots can wag their finger in men’s faces and tell them, ‘this is your mess, clear it up’.
What they fail to acknowledge is that schooling the good will never eradicate evil.
On this issue both Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten are as clueless as each other. There is no leader between them.
So desperate are they to virtue signal their way to securing the female vote they have both bought into this costly narrative.
After Dixon’s death, Turnbull told parliament, ‘Our hearts go out to Eurydice’s family. Our prayers, our sympathy, our love are with them as they grieve her loss. Women must be safe everywhere. On the street, walking through a park, in their home, at work. We need to ensure that we have a culture of respect for women.’
He added, ‘I believe, Mr Speaker, that I speak for every honourable member in saying we must never, ever, ever, tolerate violence against women. Eurydice Dixon, we mourn her loss. We grieve with her family. And we say “never again”.’
And with that, Turnbull promised to end crime; he was just too blinded by feminist brainwashing to realise it.
Shorten said on that day in parliament, ‘Women in Australia have a right to movement. It is not the fault of women if they choose to walk home from transport to their house.’
He added, ‘We need to tackle the enablers of violence and we need to change the attitudes of men.’
He too promised to end crime – and he too was too blinded by incontestable bias to recognise.
Both Turnbull, Shorten and the majority of politicians have bought into the collectivism that feminist theory outlines. Apparently all have forgotten that any ‘ism’ is dangerous.
Fast-forward again to Anning’s motion to relax the import on pepper spray in an effort to help women feel safer. This new spat between Hanson-Young and Leyonhjelm centres on precisely the same issue.
Why? Because we do not have a leader strong enough to stand up to the feminist army and tell them that not only is ending crime unreasonable, it is utterly outrageous to lay the blame for violence at men’s feet.
It is offensive and sexist that we have arrived at a position where we’re talking about ‘male violence’ unchallenged.
Leyonhjelm is entirely correct to say that misandry is equally as objectionable as misogyny. What a crying shame it is that ‘slut-shaming’ ever entered this debate and the real issue wasn’t addressed.
The focus should be on misandry. We should all be talking about the injustice of blanket blame.
Ultimately, each and every one of us should be voicing our collective fury at the injustice of feminist collectivism and defending the right of good men not to be tarred by criminals.
Newspoll: Labor leader under pump as PM extends lead
Bill Shorten’s leadership is poised to come under renewed internal pressure, with Malcolm Turnbull opening up the largest margin over his political rival in more than two years as both leaders prepare for a critical test in next week’s by-elections.
A Newspoll conducted exclusively for The Australian shows Mr Turnbull has extended his lead over the Labor leader by four points, blowing out the margin to 19 points.
The last time the Prime Minister held a lead of this magnitude was two months before the 2016 election.
With the slide in Mr Shorten’s approval ratings, the Coalition has held its ground but still trails on a small and unchanged two-party margin of 51-49.
The poll marks a 36-poll losing streak for the Coalition under Mr Turnbull’s leadership and comes on the back of a fortnight that has seen the government tread dangerous political ground with the release of controversial changes to the GST carve-up for the states and territories.
The ACCC also last week released its report into energy pricing that called for the wholesale reform of the national electricity market.
Neither issue, however, has resulted in any erosion of the Prime Minister’s dominance as preferred prime minister, with the Liberal leader lifting two points to 48 per cent.
Mr Shorten, whose leadership was already under pressure following a major gaff on tax policy, has on the other hand dropped two points to 29 per cent.
This marks the biggest gulf between the two since May 5, 2016, with the risk that it will add to internal pressure on Mr Shorten.
Labor in grip of ethnic activists, Tony Abbott says
Tony Abbott says Labor is “in the grip of ethnic activists”, urging his Coalition colleagues to back calls to cut total migration numbers.
The former prime minister’s comments come after WA Liberal senator Dean Smith urged Malcolm Turnbull to sanction a wide-ranging Senate inquiry into population policy, arguing the recent reduction in immigration levels does not go far enough to ease community concerns about population growth.
On Friday, Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton announced there had been a cut of more than 10 per cent to the annual permanent migrant intake.
A special Newspoll today reveals that 72 per cent of voters support the Turnbull government’s cut to the annual permanent migrant intake to 163,000 last financial year, on the back of a crackdown on fraudulent claims and a sharp rise in visa refusals.
Mr Abbott congratulated Mr Dutton on the reduction, but said the government needed to do more to differentiate itself from Labor.
“If the government wants to say, ‘look, there are these big distinctions between us and the Labor Party, well support for baseload power particularly coal is one area, and support for a substantial cut in immigration is another area, because it seems that the Labor Party is in the grip of, I suppose, ethnic activists in certain respects, so good on Peter Dutton for administering the system in such a way that we’ve had a modest reduction in the permanent migration numbers,” Mr Abbott told 2GB.
“But last year net overseas migration, which is the total migration numbers, was still 240,000, it’s still a record level, so we’ve got to bring it down pretty sharply if we are going to start getting the downward pressure off wages, if we’re going to take the upward pressure off housing prices, if we’re going to unclog our infrastructure. “Our public transport is full, our roads are blocked, and if we’re going to take some of the pressure off integration, particularly in places like Melbourne.”
Liberal frontbencher Michael Sukkar downplayed Senator Smith’s calls, arguing the government already maintains constant vigilance where migration levels are concerned. Mr Sukkar said there was nothing wrong with raising the issue, but the reality is we keep an eye on our migration intake in real time. “It’s the job of the minister. (Home Affairs Minister) Peter Dutton does it. His team does it,” Mr Sukkar told Sky News.
“We don’t run, as a general rule, a purely benevolent immigration program, we run an immigration program that’s in our best interests, and in our best economic interests and in the best interests of our nation more broadly, and quite frankly, the numbers of immigrants changes every year depending on what we need, what the economy needs, and what is in the best interests of our country, so the reality is we do keep an eye on the total immigration program.
“It was pretty widely reported that this year we’ve come in relatively lower than we expected and certainly a lot lower than the case in previous years, but that’s in some respects business as usual, because the program has flexibility, it changes from year to year depending on what our country needs.
“I’m not proposing a review. It’s not my portfolio. Again there’s nothing inherently wrong with looking at any particular issue, and I don’t think that’s the case here.
“I’m not proposing it simply because of the point I just made, that we have an inherently flexible immigration program that serves our nation’s best interests, we’ve obviously secured our borders, we now as a country decide who comes to our country, and for those reasons I think the immigration program is serving our nation very well as it is.”
Labor frontbencher Ed Husic said Senator Smith was “yet another Liberal politician trying to use immigration to make a story and make a name for himself.”
“I mean the reality is it’s very complex what we’ve got in this country,” he told Sky News. “The government looks at immigration levels as part of the budget process. That’s where the evidence is taken into account, but we have a lot of Libs that like I said want to make a name for themselves.
“The minute they talk about cutting immigration they get what we’ve seen today, a lot of coverage.
“The reality that we’ve got to focus on too is this: We have an ageing community where we don’t have enough taxpayers supporting enough older Australians, so we have birthrate issues as well, and we have skills shortages that are affecting a lot of industries.
“Now the government can do a lot of things to make things easier. If they want to improve the birthrate, one of the things families are worried about is how do they afford the cost of families when wages are stagnant, unemployment or employment is less secure, and they’re wondering whether or not they can afford it based on government changes to things like childcare.”
Mr Husic said the government should invest more in education to ensure Australians can fill skill gaps. “If the government’s concerned about migration levels, or government backbenchers are concerned about migration levels, why don’t they take into account the decisions that they are taking to make life harder for people right now in addressing some of those big factors that I just outlined a couple of moments ago?” he said.
“It’s all about balance. We’ve got to make sure that we’ve got local talent trained up for jobs that we know people can fill.
“We’ve seen some skilled migration rorts where you’ve seen people being brought in, in terms of being bakers or cleaners, and we think there’s got to be a better way to manage a very complicated process.”
Victoria’s Western Front Erupts: Locals Launch All-Out Attack On Hawkesdale Wind Farm Plans
A community meeting at Hawkesdale on Wednesday concerning wind farm growth in the south-west, left local MPs, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) representatives and the national windfarm commissioner in no doubt as to the position of the majority of locals.
The meeting, organised by community members, invited DEWLP members and windfarm commissioner, Andrew Dyer, to town to address community concerns about the planning and application processes for proposed windfarms in the region. The vocal room of around 100 people projected their questions to the panel, which included Mr Dyer, DELWP Executive Director statutory planning services, Jane Homewood and senior planner, Tim Doolan.
“You’ve heard these people today, everything is negative, you should get that from the feel of the meeting,” one attendee said, followed by a large round of applause, showing the panel the united belief of those in the room.
“Nobody wants you here … Go away.”
People travelled from around the region to express concerns and ensure the health, agriculture and social impacts of wind towers was clearly understood.
Mr Doolan began the evening with a presentation on the planning process for windfarm approval.
He explained that windfarm applications had to meet a number of requirements, including a noise assessment, landscape and visual impact assessment, safety, environmental impacts, traffic and road infrastructure impacts, electromagnetic interference and shutter flicker.
“These are all the different types of technical reports that need to be provided for any application for a windfarm” Mr Doolan said.
The senior planner said there were three stages of the windfarm approval process; the application stage, post-approval and amendment.
He said all wind turbines needed to comply with a noise limit of 40-decibels and could not be erected less than 1 km of any dwelling.
Turbines within this range needed consent. If consent was not given, the application was prohibited.
Local residents were advised that the town boundary is not a consideration during planning stages, but that the nearest turbine, which in Hawkesdale will sit around 1 km from the nearest dwelling, was enough to meet Victorian requirements.
Mr Dyer quashed any thought, risen by Penshurst District Pharma and windfarm opponent, Annie Gardner, That There Was a Bill in Parliament’s Upper House to Remove Noise Nuisance under the Victorian Public Health and Well-Being Act.
“The act is an act of Parliament, I don’t think councils had thought about how to make a complaint under the health and well-being act,” Mr Dyer said.
“The act is still there, you can make a complaint this afternoon under the act and Council needs a procedure in place to receive an address that complaint properly.”
Ms Gardner said that she had experienced a number of health issues as a result of the Macarthur windfarm which neighbours her property, and asked the Commissioner to consider low-frequency noise and infrasound when having an acoustician measure turbine noise.
“In the guidelines there is nothing about low-frequency noise or infrasound and this is what is affecting most of us in the sense we are sensitised when we go away from home,” Ms Gardner said. “When we go into a café with air-conditioning or supermarket, our symptoms come back because the issue is cumulative. The low-frequency noise is what we feel in our chest and in our hearts.”
When questioned why the compulsory distance of turbines from dwellings has changed from 2 km to 1 km when the Andrew’s Labor government was elected in 2014, no panel member could provide a satisfactory answer.
“I don’t know why it was changed from 2 to 1 km, but there is a noise decibel level that is based on the New Zealand standard and I’m hearing that it is totally inadequate for you, so we will take that on notice,” Ms Homewood said.
One Cape Bridgewater resident, who lives within 640 m of wind turbines told the Commissioner she was “living a life of misery” as her house was now worthless, to which the Commissioner advised her to move out.
The Cape Bridgewater windfarm was erected before any minimal distance between dwellings was enforced in 2011.
Hawkesdale resident, Liana Blake, told the room the proposed Hawkesdale windfarm would allow for wind towers to be built within 2 km of her house, the closest at 1.1 km.
“That’s our home, that’s where we decided to live and build our business,” she said.
“What are we going to do? Do we just move out because the noise is too much for us?
“You’ve wrecked our lives … these windfarms are wrecking people’s lives.”
Residents also raise concerned about the future growth of the Hawkesdale community, believing windfarms would deter people from moving to the area, “unfortunately, the panels look for evidence and that is difficult if you’ve got a new windfarm,” Ms Homewood told the room.
“It is a requirement of the panel to consider the social and economic impact of the windfarm, when they are considering whether or not the windfarm will go ahead.”
Coal price sets Whitehaven for record year
Comment has been sought from Al Gore ...
Whitehaven Coal is benefiting from thermal coal prices hovering at seven-year highs, amid strong demand from China and India.
Whitehaven Coal says its on track to deliver "a record set of financials" this year as thermal coal prices hover at seven-year highs, thanks to strong demand, particularly from China and India.
The miner produced 5.9 million tonnes of coal in the fourth quarter of 2017-18, and 22.9 million tonnes of coal for the year.
Chief executive Paul Flynn said record production at Whitehaven's Maules Creek mine in the fourth quarter, and ongoing strong performance at its Gunnedah mine helped the group hit sales within the guidance range.
Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here