Thecuriousmail’s Weblog

A majority of Australians want immigration levels lowered.

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on September 21, 2018

High immigration levels into Australia has been, and continues to be, a policy of both the major political parties. Of course there are times when high immigration levels are necessary or desirable, but similarly, there are times when it is neither necessary nor desirable.

A clear majority of Australians think the rate of immigration is too high. A clear majority of Australians also support multiculturalism, which to me indicates that there is NOT a racist basis in the opposition to high immigration levels –notwithstanding the self-publicising right wing lunatics like Pauline Hanson. A majority of Australians are saying we support ethnic diversity, but we think the rate of immigration is too high. The danger in all this is that a genuine majority concern over the high level of immigration is being politically ignored, and even politically attacked, which may well result in more hardened (read racist) views, as people feel driven into a corner.  For this, the major political parties are unequivocally to blame.

Just why do a majority of Australians object to the high immigration rate??

Basically, it seems to revolve around standard of living (eg rising costs) and quality of life issues (eg congestion), with some economic considerations (eg high housing costs, low wage growth).

A majority of Australians reject the proposition that benefits outweigh the negatives, and also reject the proposition that “Australia has the space and resources to cope with a much larger population”.

Respondents were asked to rate the top-three problems facing Australia’s major cities and the list was housing affordability pushing people to the fringes (or into homelessness), lack of government investment in infrastructure like roads and public transport, and a lack of employment opportunities in the regions, driving people to the cities. This constitutes an abject failure of planning, and manifests gross incompetence by both major political parties.

Why would both major political parties ignore the views of a majority of Australians?

There is only one argument both major political parties proffer: Australia needs the influx of people to boost economic growth.

High migration makes it nearly impossible for Australia to fall into recession, so politicians of all persuasions can claim ‘good economic management’ credit. It’s great for governments because it means economic growth looks –‘looks’, it’s a lie–  better than it otherwise would.

But in reality, the economy simply keeps getting bigger just because there are more people operating in it.

It’s great for business of course, because it keeps wages low and there’s more people to buy stuff from them.

But it isn’t that good for ordinary Australians.

As Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe has noted, the role of good economic policy should be to “raise living standards” – not just make the population, and therefore economy, bigger.

To their credit, the majority of Australians seem to understand they are being sold an economic lie by the major political parties.

This attempted deception, and the rejection of a genuine majority concern, may well lead to a boost in right-wing attitudes,  and entirely avoidable social division and unrest.

Might this be the intention?? I don’t know. But never underestimate political amorality and the politician’s secret motives and desire to manipulate.

Queensland Police kill again: their poor training and bad decisions are lethal!

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on September 17, 2018

police shooting


Yesterday, on Sunday afternoon, Queensland police shot dead a man armed with a knife at Ipswich train station.

Three police officers attended, and after a brief altercation, the man was shot dead. No other individual, bystander or police, sustained any kind of injury.

Queensland Police Union (QPU) president Ian Leavers said the officers involved would cooperate fully with an investigation by the Ethical Standards Command.

“They were simply doing their job. If we have to we will use force, but we look at all options and using a firearm is the last resort for police,” said Mr Leavers.

Queensland police are supposedly trained to deal with these kind of situations, using the least amount of force– trained specifically to accurately evaluate and de-escalate. The three attending police were armed with handguns, tasers, batons, and pepper spray, but only lethal force was used.

Whilst it is not known for certain if the person had a mental illness, it is likely.

What is the mental health system like in Queensland??

Services for the mental ill in Queensland are sub-standard, with no prospect of improvement, and the Queensland police, it seems,  will dutifully euthanize mental ill persons.

There are consequences to the personality types attracted to police service, and to the low entry requirements. When people of limited intellectual capacity are faced with a difficult situation, dumb people invariably take the easiest option. In this case it was to shoot, despite their own protocols, despite the fact that they outnumbered the person, had specific training in how to deal with the situation with the least force possible, and had alternatives to the use of  lethal force.

Additionally, from my observations again, dumb people can at best only see what is in front of them (and then not always, and not completely). So the dumb cop shoots and kills when there were other non-lethal alternatives, and then  cannot even make the  connection between the actions of a mentally ill person, police having to attend an incident, and the appalling state of the mental health system in Queensland: ie, neither should have been there. The shooting could happen a thousand times, and still no police would draw the connection between the mentally ill person in front of them, and the dire state of Queensland mental health services. “Shoot first, think never”, should be the Queensland Police motto.

Excessive force by the Queensland Police is, unfortunately,  just a matter of course in any situation involving a mentally ill person. Three boy scouts with tasers, batons and pepper spray, equipped as the ‘trained’ police were, could subdue a person with a knife, without killing them. But the Queensland Police, ostensibly trained in how to do it without lethal force, nevertheless kill as their first and only response.

Any enquiry will of course exonerate the police. Even after the most blatant incompetence, or indeed wrongdoing, the police are always exonerated.

But is this what the community wants? Mental health services independently appraised as being shamefully inadequate, with police executing mentally ill people?? But suffering a mental illness or not, and armed with a knife or not, the response from supposedly trained and properly equipped police was unacceptably incompetent.

Do we accept poor training and bad decisions from the Queensland police service? Do we accept these executions of mentally ill people by police, when the police are trained and equipped not to have to use lethal force as their first and only option?

The overwhelming answer from the community is: NO!

Home Affairs Minister Dutton is acting illegally! (and the crook cannot be held to account– he is apparently above the law.)

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on August 31, 2018

peter dutton

FACT:  Section 44(v) of the Australian constitution  disqualifies parliamentarians with a “direct or indirect interest in an agreement” with the Commonwealth. Under Sec 44 members of parliament who have any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any “agreement” with the commonwealth are not eligible to sit in the House of Representatives or Senate.

FACT: Dutton’s family trust, owners and operators of two child care centres, have received more than $5.4 million from the Commonwealth since 2014.

FACT: Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue’s advice (to the government no less) concluded there is “some risk” that the high court might find Dutton has a conflict of interest, in part due to the “substantial size of the payments”, referring to the subsidies earned by the childcare centres. He said it “is impossible to state the position with certainty” that Dutton is eligible.

FACT:  Australian Constitutional Law experts, Professor George Williams , Professor Anne Twomey, and  Brett Walker SC (among, it must be said, many others), have said there is an arguable case against Mr Dutton.


Simple then, send Dutton to the High Court for their decision. After all, it is us, the taxpayer, who will pay the costs.


FACT:  Dutton can only be referred to the High Court by parliament.

FACT: Dutton is member of the government, who have a majority in parliament.  A vote to refer Dutton to the High Court was taken, and defeated along party lines.

FACT: Dutton’s eligibility to sit in parliament is at the very least in serious question, and a resolution to the question should be sought without delay. Yet he continues as home affairs minister, and the High Court is not entitled to make a determination.

FACT: For shame!  Dutton has only contempt for the citizen, for what is right and proper,  and Australian party parliamentary democracy is a bad bad joke! And so the rule of law ends not with a bang, but with a guffaw.

Vote to legalize abortion fails in the Argentinian Senate

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on August 11, 2018


After a concerted campaign of opposition by the catholic church, legislation to legalize abortion in Argentina has been defeated in their senate.

The church calls abortion ‘murder’,  and yet, for example, widespread civilian deaths –including children killed, maimed or disfigured—as a direct result of the actions of their country’s military,  is of little import. And the embryos discarded during IVF treatment, is of little import. Abortion is immoral and must be illegal,  but blow apart the baby and discard the embryo?? This does not make sense.

Theirs is a convenient and perverted morality. If abortion is murder, and murder is wrong, why no such vocal public stance on civilian deaths in military actions, fertility treatments, capital punishment, the countless malnourished who have and will starve to death  etc?

Why such intensity of opposition specifically in regards to legal abortion?

I think because it involves a woman’s body. Christianity is a patriarchal organization, with an attitude not only that women need to be controlled –right and proper that they do what powerful old men tell them to do– but that women and sexuality and sin are inter-related.

They even had to make the mother of God a virgin! ‘The virgin mary’. Immaculate conception indeed. But really?? A divine story could not be sullied by sexual intercourse. Yes, sex is that dirty and sinful. Sex is tolerated only for procreation purposes, between a married man and woman, and only in the missionary position– doggy,  for example, is disgusting and a sin. It could be said: an unhealthy attitude to sex. Which likely contribute to . . . . . .

Only in the past couple of decades have chrisitian clergy been called to account for their child sex abuse. Even so, christian churches have still sought to protect the church itself, and protect the individual guilty clergy, maintain secrecy and manipulate outcomes. Do you think child sex abuse by clergy only occurred in the last couple of decades?

No, it has occurred for the last 2 thousand years. This is the appalling truth. Countless young boys and girls whose lives were ruined, weeping distraught children whose tears have indelibly marked the twisted morality of  Christendom.

And all the while, churches denied the evidence and protected their authority, and guilty clergy were protected and permitted to abuse more children.

Whilst not an essay on comparative religion, I would be surprised if all the major monotheistic religions –eg Isalm, Judaism–  did not also share the Christian view of women as temptresses and needing to be controlled,  and of sex as sinful.

In western Christendom less people are attending churches, and more people are defining themselves as ‘no religion’. This is understandable and no surprise.

It is also regrettable. Carl Jung, a thinker I find interesting and who I recommend, said spiritual experience is essential for human well-being. I agree.  Spirituality, the sacred,  a other-worldness,  is important to human existence.

“We should not pretend to understand the world only by the intellect; we apprehend it just as much by feeling. Therefore, the judgment of the intellect is, at best, only the half of truth, and must, if it be honest, also come to an understanding of its inadequacy.” ― C.G. Jung

Yet the question is not if the established religions will become irrelevant, but what will replace them.

“With a truly tragic delusion,” Carl Jung noted, “these theologians fail to see that it is not a matter of proving the existence of the light, but of blind people who do not know that their eyes could see. It is high time we realized that it is pointless to praise the light and preach it if nobody can see it. It is much more needful to teach people the art of seeing.”― C.G. Jung

{Incidentally, terminating a pregnancy here in Queensland, except in certain circumstances (that strangely, for example, do not include rape), is still illegal in Queensland, August 2018.}

Certainly in the first trimester, reason and common-sense says that the woman, as a free agent, is wholly and only able to make any decision regarding termination, and has never needed the approval of a corrupt political process, or a perverted religious morality.

If you want proof the rule of law in Australia is a JOKE, it’s now a crime to report a crime!

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on June 28, 2018


{Edit: the above video was deleted to conform with Australia’s anti-terrorism legislation. What a joke!}

This is a shameful story about political bullying, criminality, the attempted cover-up, and how perverted the law has become.


A former spy and his lawyer who accused the Australian government of illegally bugging the East Timorese Cabinet while negotiating a deal to share oil and gas revenue have been charged with conspiring to disclose secret information.

Independent MP Andrew Wilkie used parliamentary privilege to reveal in Parliament on Thursday that the Australian Secret Intelligence Service spy, who cannot be identified, and his lawyer Bernard Collaery had been charged over an espionage scandal that became public after the neighboring countries struck a deal on sharing Timor Sea energy royalties in 2006.

Wilkie alleged the bugging occurred during treaty negotiations in Dili in 2004. Australia won’t comment on secret service operations.

“Spying on East Timor was indeed illegal and unscrupulous,” Wilkie told Parliament. “Now this government wants to turn the former ASIS officer and his lawyer into political prisoners.”

The spy, known as Witness K, was to testify at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in 2014 in support of East Timor’s challenge to the validity of the 2006 treaty. East Timor argued the alleged espionage gave Australian negotiators an unfair advantage.

But ASIS officers raided Collaery’s offices and K’s home in Canberra in late 2013, using counterterrorism powers introduced after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. They seized documents and also K’s passport, preventing him from leaving the country.

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions office confirmed that Collaery and K had been charged under the Intelligence Services Act with conspiracy to communicate ASIS information. The office said in a statement it would not comment further as the matter was now before the court.

They face a potential 2-year prison sentence if convicted. Since the alleged offenses, the maximum sentence has been increased to 10 years.

Collaery said he had also been served with a gag order under counterterrorism laws introduced in 2004 that limited what he could say about the allegations, and might even prevent him from revealing he had been charged.

K and his lawyer are due in the Canberra Magistrates Court on July 25, when prosecutors will argue for aspects of the hearing to be kept secret.

Collaery said the charge related to K complaining about the illegal bugging to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, an independent watchdog that reviews the activities of Australia’s six intelligence agencies and investigates complaints against them.

Collaery said police had never investigated K’s allegations that the bugging had breached the Intelligence Services Act.

                  Australia has gone wrong. What we have is not a democracy.



Independent MP blasts proposed ‘Espionage and Foreign Interference Bill’ as anti-democratic.

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on June 22, 2018

Once again, the Australian parliament is attacking civil liberty and proposing further regressive laws.  In this party parliamentary merry-go-round, both the government and the opposition are supporting the legislation.

Remember, Australia is the ONLY Western-style democracy with neither a Bill or Charter of Human Rights, nor a Federal Anti-Corruption body.

So the politicians and bureaucrats do whatever they want; reason, justification and evidence, and accountability, have never belonged here.

You are under attack!


From GetUp!:

The email below is from independent MP Andrew Wilkie. Don’t worry, your details haven’t been shared with anyone. Read on to find out why Mr Wilkie is sounding the alarm…

Wilkie: “In 2003 I resigned from my job as a Senior Intelligence Analyst to blow the whistle on the fraudulent claims the Howard Government was using to justify taking us to war in Iraq.

I’ve never doubted for one moment that what I did served the interests of my country and its people. Fast forward 15 years and I’m an Independent Federal MP representing the Tasmanian electorate of Denison.

Our Parliament is on the verge of passing draconian legislation that undermines government transparency, our civil liberties and freedom of the press.

Had this legislation (the Espionage and Foreign Interference Bill) been in place in 2003 when I alerted the Australian people to our government’s Iraq War deceit, I’d have faced 25 years in prison. 

Click here to watch a video of me explaining just how dangerous this legislation is – and then share it with your friends and family to spread the word.


I’m deeply concerned about the chilling impact this legislation will have on political debate in our country. Whistleblowers and journalists help us hold power to account, and when those voices are silenced our democracy suffers. 

And it’s not just whistleblowers and journalists who need to be worried about this legislation. Ordinary people participating in peaceful protest also risk being charged with serious offences. For example, if you or one of your loved ones blockaded the Adani coal mine, the Attorney General could choose to charge you with sabotage – which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. 

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think any single politician should have that sort of power.

Given the current state of global politics, it’s disturbingly easy to imagine the Australian Government might try to follow the US into Donald Trump’s first war. If that were to eventuate, do you want us to be a society that has criminalised whistleblowing?

The Turnbull Government looks set to pass this legislation next week, with the support of the Labor Party. Time is running out for us to make sure the Australian public know what is happening to our democracy.

Can you watch and share this video to make sure this anti-democratic attack doesn’t fly under the radar?

Yours Sincerely,

Andrew Wilkie MP

On Global Warming (and how Fox News blurs the boundary between what is real and what is delusional).

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on June 17, 2018

chasing ice

The continued rejection of human-induced global warming/climate change theory by some people reminds me of the creationist argument that evolution is not real because there are gaps in the fossil record (not the case then  that the further evidence is simply yet to be found?).

We must ask ourselves: Is the theory internally coherent? Does the relevant available evidence support the theory?

In regards to global warming/climate change theory (and evolution), yes and yes.

If we act as though Global warming/CCT matters, but it doesn’t matter, then it doesn’t matter. Positives would include a cleaner planet, and a renewable energy technology impetus.

But if we act as though Global warming/CCT doesn’t matter, but in fact it does matter, then it matters. And very much so, as the negative consequences are wholly substantial, even inimical to life.

Decisions can reasonably be based on certain and proven knowledge, or on the balance of probabilities (‘beyond a reasonable doubt’). At this stage global warming/CCT is, on the balance of probabilities, real, and we must take widespread action to mitigate the consequences. We need to continue research and gather evidence, but because the consequences are of such great import, it is unreasonable and against common sense not to act now. So why then an apparent failure to agree and act?

What of the global warming/CCT deniers?? The overwhelming majority seem to have received money from those businesses and industries who feel threatened by a paradigm change. These people are fundamentally compromised and are worthy of ridicule: they present themselves and their views as independent, but they have prostituted themselves and are merely lobbyists, and their hyperbolic objections invariably disappear under the briefest scrutiny.

Aside from their contempt for independent expert advise, there are indeed in-common traits and beliefs amongst the climate deniers. I can see it. Can you? What other views do they share? Furthermore, what is the origin of those views? The future will see it I am sure. Because in understanding the common denominators amongst the deniers, a truth is revealed in their perspective: they are happy prisoners to their ideology, and enforce a strict ideological obedience amongst the other prisoners– from this jail no reason or common-sense can ever liberate them.  Partisan politics, and the strictly enforced obedience to an ideological perspective, is destroying our ability to reason, both individually and as a society.

Donald Trump: “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.”  This indicates the madness we are in at the moment; he is likely being accurate in his claim.

Which leads me to my final point: Occam’s Razor needs a 21st century update.

Without independent corroborative evidence, the views of all those seeking to attain or maintain a position of power, and those that seek to make money from maintaining a particular view, must be rejected. They are intrinsically compromised, suspect motives and deceptive intentions. We need always to be guided by reason, common sense, and any available evidence.

Sadly, there is no quiet place left in this world where you cannot hear their maddening monkey chatter.

O Canada, a bully is not your friend.

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on June 11, 2018

Canadian PM Trudeau


Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau said his nation is insulted that Trump unilaterally imposed stiff tariffs on Canada for “national security” reasons.

“Canadians … stood shoulder to shoulder with American soldiers in far off lands in conflicts from the First World War onward,” the prime minister said at a press conference at the end of the summit,  the Washington Post reported. “It’s kind of insulting.”

“Canadians, we’re polite, we’re reasonable, but we also will not be pushed around,” Trudeau continued.

He said the country won’t hesitate to impose its own retaliatory tariffs.

“The president will continue to say what he says. I have made it clear to the president that [imposing retaliatory tariffs] is not something we relish doing, but it’s something that we absolutely will do,” Trudeau said.

The Canadian PM is standing up for Canada, criticizing  what he sees as bad American decisions that adversely impact Canada.  No problem with that surely? Trudeau, while obviously frustrated, was quite measured and hardly extreme. It must be said tho, and to our great shame, something no Australian PM has ever done, or would do. We are America’s lackey, and we are the best in the world at what we do!


American reactions to PM Trudeau:

Larry Kudlow, director of the U.S. National Economic Council, said on CNN that Trudeau engaged in “betrayal” and “stabbed us in the back.”

Peter Navarro, the White House director of trade policy, told Fox News Sunday, “There’s a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door.. That’s what weak, dishonest Justin Trudeau did.”

Trump fired back after Trudeau’s press conference, blasting the Canadian leader on Twitter as “very dishonest and weak.” The president also tweeted from aboard Air Force One that due to “Justin’s false statements” the U.S. would not sign on with the other six members of the G-7 to a joint communique that was to follow the meeting.


What has gone on here??

The current American Administration is a disturbed one, petulant and ignorant –but above all, bullies– and textbook cases of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). Canada is and always will be predisposed to being an American ally,  but apparently is not permitted an independent view, or to stand up for itself. This is the new America under Trump: countries are less an ally, collaborator  or a friend; more they owe homeage and allegiance, and contrary views will not be tolerated –indeed they will be attacked, however irrationally.


From Psychology Today:

“The ability to take criticism well depends mostly on how secure we feel about ourselves. Yet it could hardly be said that any of us actually enjoys being criticized. For it’s a challenge to avoid feeling defensive when we experience ourselves as attacked. At such times, it’s more “natural”–or rather, more aligned with our conditioning–to go into self-protective mode. And typically, the way we choose to protect ourselves is through denying the criticism, indignantly turning on the criticizer, or hastening to disengage from the uncomfortable situation entirely.

Such a well-nigh universal tendency is elevated almost to an art form with those afflicted with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). When criticized, narcissists show themselves woefully incapable of retaining any emotional poise, or receptivity. And it really doesn’t much matter whether the nature of that criticism is constructive or destructive. They just don’t seem to be able to take criticism, period. At the same time, these disturbed individuals demonstrate an abnormally developed capacity to criticize others (as in, “dish it out” to them).

Although narcissists don’t (or won’t) show it, all perceived criticism feels gravely threatening to them (the reason that their inflamed, over-the-top reactions to it can leave us so surprised and confused). Deep down, clinging desperately not simply to a positive but grandiose sense of self, they’re compelled at all costs to block out any negative feedback about themselves. Their dilemma is that the rigidity of their defenses, their inability ever to let their guard down (even with those closest to them), guarantees that they’ll never get what they most need, which they themselves are sadly–no, tragically–oblivious of.”

Sniff sniff. Woof! Get out!

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on June 10, 2018

nsw police


“Police will exclude any person from the venue that the drug dog indicates has or who has recently had drugs on them, regardless of whether drugs are located.” said NSW Police South West Metropolitan Region Commander, Assistant Commissioner Peter Thurtell.

NSW police have refused entry to persons at a Sydney musical event after a drug detection dog indicated the person had previous contact with drugs, even though a search showed no drugs were on the person.

Some relevant considerations:

Are drug dog indications 100% accurate?  No.  In fact studies show accuracy is not even most of the time, just some of the time.

A 2011 double-blind test, and subsequent study found that the behaviour and cues of dog handlers were mostly responsible for the dog’s response to scent. Meaning that the animals could be very easily manipulated to behaviour in a manner consistent to what the handler wishes.”


Can a person who gives an accurate indication of drug contact have in fact had no knowing contact or use that would give rise to that indication?  Yes. Eg, if you shake hands with someone who has handled drugs, you will give a positive indication.

“Quite simply, if you handle or use drugs you will not be permitted to remain at the venue,” Thurtell said.

Quite simply, stupid! Making stoopid sense! ‘If you handle or use drugs’  . . . but that determination is likely to be wrong –can be shown to be likely wrong, if he was inclined to, or capable of,  thinking about it– but let’s not worry about that.  And the person making that comment is a senior NSW police officer!

It is not a surprise that the police are acting on a fundamentally flawed justification. Police are not known for careful reasoning, nor respect for civil liberties.

That is why police are, nominally at least, accountable to the courts.

Yet in a further example of Australian judicial idiocy, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case against the NSW Police in regards to this drug detection/exclusion matter.

“The court determined not to hear the matter because no-one’s rights had yet been abused, and the case was considered ‘hypothetical’,” the court statement reads.

So if NSW Police decide to no longer take into account possible civilian injury or death in their firearm use, that is hypothetical, and we wait for a civilian injury or death before we address it??  Too much law, and too little reason and common-sense.

I confidently predict the court will NEVER find against the police in regards to this matter.

You are under attack. The system is dysfunctional, and it is a threat to you.

Thurtell said: “we’re [NSW Police] confident in our powers”.

And he’s right. Nobody, including the government and judiciary, are willing to say to the police: You have gone too far.

In support of Sally McManus, ACTU Secretary

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on June 1, 2018

ACTU Secretary Sally McManus

I would like here to express support  for the ACTU Secretary Sally McManus,  an endangered animal in Australian public life: she is intelligent, a free thinker, and speaks her mind.

McManus recently said: “I believe in the rule of law when the law is fair and the law is right. But when it’s unjust I don’t think there’s a problem with breaking it.”

However, attacks on McManus, especially by political conservatives, were immediate and bordering on incoherent abuse and misogynist taunts. I was embarrassed to be an Australian at the level of personal attacks on her by other Australians, and indeed there seemed some contest to be the most vile, the most belittling, the most denigrating. And all the while, witless as far as any understanding as to what she was saying. Even the more progressive political elements were reluctant to publicly support her, or even to support a discussion on what she was saying. (Gillian Triggs was similarly rabidly attacked for daring to question and to criticize, in to-date the most shameful episode in Australian public life.)

For example, Coalition (and political conservative) Defence Industry Minister Christopher Pyne, in one of the less vitriolic attacks,  accused McManus of reciting “anarcho-Marxist claptrap” and said there would be “chaos” if Australians failed to follow the law.

Pyne is on the public record as supporting non-violent pro-democracy demonstrators in China, where it is a crime, it is against the law, to call for democratic elections. Pyne publicly supports the breaking of the law in this situation, and attacks the law as unjust; yet Pyne tells McManus the law can’t be broken, there is never a just cause to do so, and indeed, should it happen, there will be chaos.

Is this a contradiction, or is Pyne bi-polar?? Oh ok, both then!


What about the myriad of dumb enforceable laws in Australia: is the rule of law really so inviolable, perfectly immune from a test of reason or common-sense or equity??

From, Urban legend or legislation: Australia’s weirdest laws explained, 7/3/2016:

It’s illegal to be in possession of more than 50kg of potatoes in Western Australia

This is true. For now, at least.

Western Australia’s powerful spud regular, the Potato Marketing Corporation — which is the last of its kind in Australia — has the power to stop and search any vehicle suspected of carrying more than 50kg of potatoes. It’s enshrined in a law from 1946.

But good news for fans of the starchy crop: Premier Colin Barnett says he will abolish the archaic Potato Marketing Corporation if he survives the next state election next year.


I encourage you to think about what McManus said.

She is clearly of considerable intellect and of a questioning nature, and I encourage her to continue to speak her mind. It will no doubt be made difficult for her –the obscene personal attacks will continue– but people like her are the best Australians — they encourage us to think, and a thinking citizen is the greatest threat to the elites, whose driving desire is the maintenance of a status quo where they are in control, they prosper. Will Pyne be remembered in 2500 years? Plato is. “The only thing worse than suffering an injustice is committing an injustice.” – Plato.

Judging by their responses to what she said –nonsense arguments or vicious argumentum ad hominem– it is painfully clear that her attackers are neither of considerable intellect, nor of any kind of questioning or inquisitive nature. They are the worst of Australians.

I say a law must be consistent with reason and common sense,  must be equitable, the reasoning made public, and must be for the overall good of the community. For a free agent, this is a precondition for acceptance and compliance. A law is not valid if it doesn’t meet these conditions, and as such may be broken. Arguably, must be broken.

Legislation is decided by fewer than 0.01% of the population. Does that 0.01% represent more insight, more wisdom, than 99.99% of the population? Are they the best of us? There is an argument that a politician is always the worst of us.

Legislation is decided by fewer than 0.01 % of the population, and usually those people make decisions with secret agendas, on an ideological stance, or due to lobbying, bribery, or reciprocal favour exchanges;   in a party parliamentary democracy, first and foremost decisions are made in the interests of the individual politician and their political party. Good legislation, just and made with reason and evidence, and what is in the best interests of the citizen, consistent with individual rights, and what is best for the country moving forward, is the least important consideration, if considered at all.

Political systems, party parliamentary democracy or dictatorship, are hopelessly failing the citizen, and despite the criticism by Pyne and  like conservatives, it is, and always will be,  the right and duty of all citizens to oppose unjust laws.

“An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.” Mahatma Gandhi.

Do not be sheep. The abattoir will await you! That is your reward. Obedience,  here being both assumed and  proffered,  is more of a an obstacle than needing to move a mountain. Even if you disagree, if you do not act on it the manipulators will see your inaction as an implied or tacit consent. You must act. Action is the necessary expression of reason. You must act now!

  An unexamined life IS not worth living. To be able to reason is to share in something divine. It is a faculty born other-worldly. To be able to reason can be learnt,  but it cannot be bought, bullied, or lied to, and it will never pander to king or president.
 Reason, common-sense , and compassion, can illuminate the path for consciousness,  thru any existences, to the end of all existences, and force forever back into the dark the pig-people who seek to manipulate and control.