Raping Law? What the heck is Human Rights????

Can we ask ourselves why is there a push for a human rights 'charter'? Is it that we don't want to give citizens rights but only minority's?

Oh yes it seems 'no one' wants to have a right to bear arms amendment like the 2nd Amendment of the US. No, citizens should never be allowed to defend themselves and criminals should always be able to rape the female. As long as the rapist remains at large, seems like a good law for raping!

More rights for them, not you

33 Comments | 0 Trackbacks | Permalink

Andrew Bolt Blog

Andrew Bolt

Wednesday, July 01, 2009 at 01:11pm

The Australian Human Rights Commission demands the Rudd Government do more for human rights. In particular:

Recommendation 36: The Australian Government should resource a significantly enhanced nation-wide human rights education program.

Recommendation 37: The Australian Government should enhance the powers, functions and funding of the Australian Human Rights Commission, particularly if a Human Rights Act is adopted. Any new functions should be accompanied by appropriate funding.

Recommendation 38: The Commission’s existing functions and powers should be enhanced as follows: ...

Do the words “gravy train” resonate?

Protestors of the West forget Human Rights

The real intention of protestors here in the West is not to protest against victimization but to force a communist regime on the people, which they are doing with some power.
Here, Greg Sheridan outlines the hypocrisy of these ferals that only seem to protest about things that really never should be drawing raised eyebrows.

THE missing actor in the tragic and gruesome story of Iran since the stolen election of June 12 has been the Western human rights lobby. Where is it?

What has happened in Iran is one of the pivotal events of our time. Tens of millions of Iranians voted against their demented President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the corrupt, clerical misrule he represents. No one seriously doubts the electoral fraud.

With 40 million paper ballots to count, the Iranian authorities announced the result of the election two hours after polls closed.

Supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi and the other opposition candidates were not allowed to scrutinise the counting. The margin of Ahmadinejad's alleged victory - 11 million votes - was patently absurd. The final touch: the alleged margin was almost identical across most parts of the country, despite huge regional and ethnic differences.

The point is this was not meant to be a convincing fraud. It was a brazen, supremely arrogant exercise in brute power. The votes, in effect, were not counted at all. The process showed the absolute contempt in which the regime holds elections. It demonstrated the dictator's most important asset: the will to power.

Since then the Iranian dictatorship has behaved with remarkable savagery. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians took to the streets to protest the stolen election and to vent their frustration at the medieval dictatorship they are forced to endure.

For the first few days the regime let them protest.

Then Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned them to get off the streets. What has followed has been one of the most brutal crackdowns on democratic sentiment in recent years.

The regime acknowledges the deaths of 17 protesters. At least 40 Iranian journalists have been imprisoned. CNN, early in the business, reported 150 protesters had died in a single day.

The hated Basij militia, a unit of the Revolutionary Guard, has savagely beaten hundreds of demonstrators. It has also stabbed, shot and clubbed to death many people.

The image of the beautiful young Neda Agha Soltan as she lay dying after being shot at a demonstration, almost certainly by Basij militiamen, for a moment transfixed the world. Mousavi has described the rulers of Iran as "proponents of a petrified, Taliban-style Islam".

Despite the regime's successful if crude reassertion of basic power, this is a vulnerable time for Ahmadinejad and his cohorts. It is not only that there is popular revolt and division within the clerics. There is also now a flowering international Shia debate about whether clerics should play a direct role in politics. Inside Iran, power has flowed away from Khamenei and the other clerics and towards Ahmadinejad and the Revolutionary Guard.

But an ideologically based dictatorship is often at its weakest when it has to resort to crude military rule.

This was the case when Poland declared martial law in 1981. It was then in plain sight for the world to behold: a military dictatorship, pure and simple. The flimsy rags of ideological purpose that global communism had conferred on the Polish government were stripped away. The Polish regime then, like the Iranian regime today, was to be seen in George Orwell's terms as simply a boot treading on a human face, over and over again.

This is the undeniable story of Iran. So where are the Western demonstrators?

Apart from ethnic Iranians, there has hardly been a single demonstration in any Western capital in support of the Iranian democrats.

Yet isn't there a class, in Australia and in the rest of the West, of people deeply concerned about human rights? The class that Robert Manne and Judith Brett call the moral middle class? Weren't there thousands of demonstrators against the World Trade Organisation and G20 meetings in Australia because the global economy allegedly repressed the rights of poor people?

What about the groups explicitly dedicated to human rights? In the twilight struggle against the communist empire, human rights groups played an honourable and at times indispensable role in gaining freedom for the likes of Soviet dissidents Andrei Sakharov, Natan Sharansky and countless others.

It was a tremendous consolation to these dissidents when a US president, or indeed a humble human rights group, campaigned on their behalf.

Recently I interviewed David Menashri, one of the great authorities in the world on Iran. He was born in Iran and studied for his PhD there. Now he is a professor at Tel Aviv University. He is in no sense a military hawk on Iran. He asked this simple question: "Can't the West exercise its moral muscles? What a gesture it would be if all the European nations, and Australia, temporarily withdrew their ambassadors from Iran in protest at what is happening there."

The truth is the language and practice of human rights advocacy in the West has become completely corrupted by the postmodern ideologies of the contemporary Left. In this parallel universe all crimes are a subset of imperialism and the only true villains are the US, Israel and, for us, Australia.

When Frank Brennan commented that the Victorian human rights charter had been ineffective in its own terms and had little to do with human rights, but had become "a device for the delivery of a soft Left sectarian agenda", he was, perhaps somewhat unconsciously, making a broader point about the debasement and collapse of authentic human rights advocacy in the West.

Where are you on Iran, Louise Adler, happy to accuse Israel of war crimes without the slightest evidence, but apparently unstirred by the murder of hundreds of innocent civilians in Iran?

What have you got to say, Antony Loewenstein, stupidly and inaccurately labelling Israel an apartheid state and approvingly quoted in the Iranian official media, but listless on your blog in the face of the Iranian repression?

What about The Age's cartoonist Michael Leunig, who once drew a cartoon so morally obtuse, stupid and offensive that it was happily accepted by an Iranian newspaper in a competition for cartoons that would offend Jews (the cartoon was submitted without Leunig's knowledge), but who is apparently unmoved to draw an image in sympathy with young Iranian democrats?

The conclusion must be that many Western human rights organisations, and many of the most self-congratulatory and morally vain posturers, are not interested in human rights at all. They are interested in advancing a soft Left sectarian agenda. Except, of course, that the word soft may be wholly misplaced.

Update:

Here it seems there seems to be outrage over a Government trying to prevent sexual abuse among children. But the left don't want to prevent anything, especially war. The first groups to ever denounce war when there seems to be a 'game on', they march around and complain about wars. Geez, if they wanted to stop a war why didn't they just stop and ask Hitler or Stalin (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il)to stop for world peace and human rights? I'm sure those 2 men, having many fans in socialist/communist movements worldwide (Jew-haters), would have listened.

Communism is a religion unto itself

From The Australian:

The Left is killing religion

Giles Auty | July 01, 2009

Article from: The Australian

BY an odd coincidence, Hal G.P. Colebatch's excellent article "UK bill an attack on faith" appeared in yesterday's The Australian about five days after I had the pleasure of delivering the annual St Edmund Campion lecture at Sydney's Campion College.

Colebatch's moving piece explained why it may soon become illegal to hang a cross in any Catholic school in Britain and asks advisedly what sort of intolerant world postmodernist totalitarianism is creating.

Anyone familiar with Elizabethan history in Britain may recall that Campion was tortured and executed in 1581 for trying to keep alive the old faith - Catholicism - in Britain after Henry VIII's historic rift with Rome in 1533.

The substance of my talk, which was called "Are we truly evolving? Reflections on the life of an Elizabethan saint", touched on the creeping influence of postmodernist totalitarianism throughout the Western world rather than only in Britain.

Anyone who has read Evelyn Waugh's biography of Campion will understand something of the extraordinary heroism through which he and scores of other martyred priests - plus thousands of devout laypeople - struggled to keep what they regarded as the true, historic Christian faith alive in Britain.

Now, instead of finding itself persecuted by Elizabethan spies, informers and hangmen, Catholicism finds itself under severe assault from the self-righteous, politically correct social engineers of Britain's political Left.

Thankfully the same thing has yet to happen in Australia, but with the increasing politicisation of public education here by an ideologically driven Marxist Left, something very similar may not be far away.

Already Christianity in all its forms is treated with increasing contempt in societies that basically believe they have evolved and so distanced themselves from what they imagine are the old-world superstitions - and attendant moral constraints - of their past.

Postmodernist ideology is an exclusively man-made - and, of course, woman-made - ideology that finds no basis whatsoever in any traditional human system of belief. Until the advent of postmodernism, communism was Christianity's most persistent and relentless recent foe.

Now postmodernism in all its largely Marxist-inspired guises - political correctness, gender theory, feminism, post-colonialism, determinism, deconstruction, relativism, structuralism, historical revisionism - has become a stealthier and thus even more sinister adversary that flourishes, generally unremarked, in our midst.

Why has Western society, with all its proud history, generally allowed such an abject internal collapse?

American Roger Kimball, who is one of a number of international cultural commentators with whom I have corresponded through the years, explains the whole matter as well as anyone: "In a democratic society like ours, where free elections are guaranteed, political revolution is almost unthinkable in practical terms. Consequently, utopian efforts to transform society have been channelled into cultural and moral life.

"In America, scattered if much-publicised episodes of violence have wrought far less damage than the moral and intellectual assaults that do not destroy buildings but corrupt sensibilities and blight souls. The success of America's recent cultural revolution can be measured not in toppled governments but in shattered values.

"If we often forget what great changes this revolution brought in its wake, that, too, is a sign of its success: having changed ourselves, we no longer perceive the extent of our transformation." These wise words are taken from Kimball's The Long March.

Postmodernism corrodes society largely through assaults on its soft underbelly, principally through theeffective hegemony it has created in the arts, education and culture generally.

Perhaps its most damaging corrosion has been through the politicisation of public education at the tertiary, secondary and even primary levels.

In Australia, generations of children have effectively been abducted from the influence of their parents, who often have little or no say in what - or how - their children will be taught.

Now, as Colebatch makes clear, the postmodernist Left is intent on wiping out the remaining pockets of resistance that exist in private and religious schools.

I hope I am not alone in regarding this as an insult to the basic principles of democratic life.

Giles Auty is a former art critic for The Spectator and The Australian.

Communists are not only violent, but against Western Civilization

From The Australian:

THE Green Left Weekly is probably Australia's best-known radical-left newspaper. While nominally independent, it is affiliated with the Socialist Alliance party and its youth movement Resistance! Like most radical socialist groups, it invariably aligns with the anti-Israel movement.

For some time it has been apparent that an unholy alliance is growing between extreme left-wing groups and Arab and Islamic extremists, despite completely different visions for society. This alliance has been on show in much of the anti-war movement in Britain and other places.

For instance, Britain's "Respect" party is basically an alliance of radical Muslims and old hard-line Marxists such as former Labour MP George Galloway. Galloway was pro-Saddam Hussein before the 2003 Iraq war. Today, he works for the Iranian government mouthpiece television station, Press TV.

But what isn't widely known is that the Green Left Weekly is openly promoting extremism among Arabic speakers in Australia through a monthly Arabic-language insert called the Flame. This support is not limited to Green Left Weekly's own far-left agenda. It supports terrorist groups and promotes violence as the solution to the existence of the "Zionist state."

You would think GLW's declared pursuit of the advancement of "anti-racist, feminist, student, trade union, environment, gay and lesbian, civil liberties" would rule out the promotion of radical Islamist groups such as Hamas, which are deeply hostile to all the above.

Yet alongside content promoting the PFLP, a tiny left-wing and currently marginal Palestinian terror group, Hamas is also promoted by GLW as a positive model of "resistance"; that is to say, terrorism. Those killed as a result of the violence Hamas sparks are "martyrs", terminology Flame shares with Hamas. Further, the terminology of the Flame is openly hostile to the more moderate governments of the region and repeatedly demands all-out war on the "Zionist entity".

The January edition of the Flame was devoted to the conflict in Gaza. The cover page is a compilation of statements from various communist parties in the Arab world. Predictably, the communiques incited its Arabic readers with imagery of "slaughter," and a "waterfall of Palestinian blood washing the streets". More surprisingly, there are implicit calls for other Arab states to expand the Gaza war.

In "Hunt of a people", the paper refers to the 1982 Lebanon war, indignant "Arab capitals stood watching, exactly as is happening now."

The paper targets American-allied Arab governments for their moderation in the war, which it terms "collusion". The front-page article from the Iraqi Communist Party rebukes the Saudi government, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority, which it disparagingly dubs the "Oslo Authority". The Mubarak government is condemned for being "a loyal accomplice to Israel and the Oslo Authority in their attempt to shut Hamas out". It also accuses the Saudi monarchy of having covert dealings with "the Zionists" stretching back decades. Any non-violent interaction with Israel, whether actual or imagined, is scorned.

In the March edition the Flame was aghast at Egypt for co-operating with the US against Hamas. Its expose was titled "Egypt uses American soldiers to prevent weapons smuggling to the resistance!" In the Arabic, "the resistance" is euphemism for terrorist violence and for Hamas itself.

Another article, "A return to principles is necessary after the Israeli aggression", is more virulent. An illustration shows a Palestinian imprisoned behind barbed wire shaped as a partial Jewish star. The article condemns those calling the Gaza war a victory for the "resistance", given the large proportion of "martyrs" from the Palestinian people in comparison to the "slim" number killed among "soldiers of the Israeli occupation army". The rest of the article is critical of the Palestinian factions for their internecine fight.

It criticises Hamas for abandoning its traditional position as the "resistance" against "the enemy" to fight the PA and calls for a "united Palestinian resistance" which will "return the benefit to the Palestinian people". It is clear that this unity will not negotiate peace with Israel, with the paper stating "this unity in battle must not fall into the trap of dialogue that the decrepit Arab regimes of the region are producing." The Flame defines Israel as "the enemy" and demands violent "resistance" while pouring scorn on negotiations or dialogue, It praises the assassination of a "Zionist minister" as "courageous."

The radical anti-Israel stance of Green Left Weekly is no secret. However, the message it pitches to the Arabic-speaking community of Australia is far more inflammatory. Unbeknown to its English readers, it supports terrorist groups such as Hamas whose goal is to create a state where there would be no place for the gays, lesbians, feminists and trade unionists who read the English-language edition of the paper.

Ilan Grapel is a researcher with the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council.

Andrew Bolt is right, Australia is becoming a Communist state with no freedom of press

Rudd the ruthless

46 Comments | 0 Trackbacks | Permalink

Andrew Bolt Blog

Andrew Bolt

Monday, June 29, 2009 at 10:09am

Glenn Milne says Kevin Rudd’s decision to send the Federal Police to investigate Malcolm Turnbull over the Beaut Ute is sinister:

Rudd wants to be careful about his penchant for persecution, flushed as he is with the fruits of his total war against the Opposition Leader. He too is capable of overreach…

Last week the focus was on special treatment for the Prime Minister’s friends. The other half of that equation is yet to be fully explored; the punishment meted out to those who dare to publicly criticise Rudd.

Stories are beginning to filter through. For example, a commentator who publicly questioned the government’s economic policy was told that a senior member of the government had made a direct representation to the chairperson of a private company asking that the company no longer use the commentator’s services. A senior minister followed up with the chief executive of the same company to see whether the government’s wishes had been complied with.

Ugly stuff.

No doubt we’ll soon have David Marr update his famous denunciation:

(The Prime Minister) has cowed his critics, muffled the press, intimidated the ABC, gagged scientists, silenced non-government organisations, neutered Canberra’s mandarins, curtailed parliamentary scrutiny, censored the arts, banned books, criminalised protest and prosecuted whistleblowers.

Of course, Marr was then damning a Liberal Prime Minister. Will he dare say the same of a Labor one who deserves the criticism far more?

Britain become Totalitarian state

Want to be shocked? Are you ready for a Government that tells you what to do, instead of you telling IT what to do?

From The Australian

UK bill an attack on faith

Hal G.P. Colebatch | June 30, 2009

I WROTE here in April that Britain appears to be evolving into the first modern soft totalitarian state, but it seems I didn't know the half of it.

A sinister new equality bill is before a parliamentary committee. So far there has been surprisingly little about it in the British media, although the Catholic Church has called attention to the fact it would give the government unprecedented powers to police not only public but private religious and other activities.

The Thomas More Legal Centre's director Neil Addison recently said that under this bill, "nearly every form ofdiscrimination is banned, even for private associations and churches. Christian churches are to be banned from preferring Christians in their employment practices except in the employment of priests or religious teachers. They are not going to be ableto insist that employees live in accordance with the ideals or principles of the church, and any employment ormembership decision they take can be investigated by an unelected quango, the Equality and Human Rights Commission."

This is only the first stage. The Catholic bishops of England and Wales have warned that religious schools and care homes could be forced to remove crucifixes, holy pictures or other religious symbols or icons from their walls in case they offend atheist or non-Catholic cleaners. Under the terms of the bill, Catholic institutions could be guilty of harassment if they display images offensive to non-Catholics.

Ordinary laws already offer protection from harassment in the normal course of events. The draft bill defines harassment in the widest possible terms as "unwanted conduct ... with the purpose or effect of violating a person's dignity, or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment".

The bishops, after taking legal advice, say that because the burden of proof for such a highly subjective definition is reversed in legal proceedings under the terms of the bill, it would put them in an impossible position if people complained about any manifestation of religious belief, even on church property.

Andrew Summersgill, the general secretary of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales, says: "The practical consequences of this are that a Catholic care home, for example, may have crucifixes and holy pictures on the walls (that) reflect and support the beliefs of the residents. A cleaner may be an atheist or of very different religious beliefs. Nonetheless, if a cleaner found the crucifixes offensive, there would be no defence in law against a charge of harassment."

It also would be illegal under the bill to refuse employment to such non-believers. Catholic schools could likewise be forced to remove crucifixes or holy pictures if atheist or non-Catholic dinner ladies found them offensive. Beyond decorations, symbols and icons, this may open the way for state interference in invisible and perhaps more profound matters of doctrine.

There is no test of reasonableness in the draft bill, such as is contained in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. "It is tailor-made for people to come up with objections because it puts the emphasis on the person being offended rather than on an objective test of what ought to be considered reasonable," Addison says.

A proponent of the bill, Stephen Whittle of Press for Change, effectively agrees. He told the parliamentary committee examining the bill: "We would argue strongly that we experience discrimination because other people think that we look different. It is what those other people do, not what we do, that creates that discrimination. Therefore, the bill needs to refocus on what it is those other people see and react to."

The bill is largely the creation of the Labour Party's deputy leader and Equality Minister Harriet Harman, one of the party's most committed left-wing social engineering activists, who probably has as much clout in the government as anyone. Although the bill was supposed to ensure protection for religious groups, Harman neglected to mention this when she announced the proposals in the House of Commons last month. Recently she also refused to allow a debate on the rising numbers of religious believers complaining that they are discriminated against in the public sector. There has been a string of cases of people suspended or sacked for expressing their religious convictions, wearing religious symbols such as crucifixes or, in the case of one nurse, offering to pray or a patient.

London priest Tim Finigan says: "For the government to promote this agenda in extreme form at a time when the political system is suffering unparalleled contempt and the far-right groups have their best opportunity for years is stupid beyond belief."

While the potential for government interference with private religious activities is serious enough, the bill may go much further: as it stands it will, for example, also allow the government to control the membership criteria of political parties and movements, as well as private clubs and societies.

Hal G.P. Colebatch's book Blair's Britain was chosen as a book of the year by The Spectator in 1999.

The Beast from Within-Power unto an end in itself

If you want to learn the tragic truth before it happens in Australia or the USA, WATCH THIS VIDEO!