Thecuriousmail’s Weblog

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 do what 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

Advertisements

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

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on June 17, 2018

chasing ice

The continued rejection of 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.

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. Sadly, there is no quiet place left in the 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.

ETC ETC

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.”

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/evolution

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.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-12/accuracy-of-police-sniffer-dogs-called-into-question/3726228

 

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. 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 news.com.au, 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.

 

https://thecuriousmail.wordpress.com/2017/06/21/the-fiction-of-the-rule-of-law-and-why-you-can-break-the-law/

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.

Huh?? UH-HUH!

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on May 31, 2018

 Has the world really become  immune to the narcissist and their preposterous behaviour?? Is the world now really so obscene and deluded it cannot see the dark dark reality??

Jesse Duplantis, Televangelist.

God told him he needed a $54 million private jet. God (apparently) didn’t tell him to pray more, do more good deeds, be kinder or more generous, or some such thing, just buy that private jet.  It is not the God who was  the author of the Ten Commandments; it is a new God, a dispenser of Gold Amex credit cards.

Duplantis, justifying purchase of the jet: “I really believe that if Jesus was physically on the Earth today he wouldn’t be riding a donkey.”

Can religious figures become less relevant??

Let’s ask the Catholic Bishop protecting the paedophile priest who repeatedly rapes young boys and girls.

Maybe tho it’s the same God who “told” George Bush to invade Iraq. But no, perhaps it’s not a communication from the Supreme Being, rather a self-serving hallucination seeking validation.

Bill Shorten, Australian politician.

Short clip of Shorten “answering” a question while a Minister in the previous Gillard Federal government. He is currently the Federal Opposition Leader, and likely next Prime Minister. In Shorten’s defence, ALL politicians are such idiots.

“I don’t know what was said, but I agree with it!” Huh???

 

Has the world really become  immune to the narcissist and their preposterous behaviour?? Is the world now really so obscene and deluded it cannot see the dark dark reality??

Huh??

There is a profound wrongness to conventional authority in this reality. It is the putrid stench of decay.

Uh-huh!!

Australia: the (very) unlucky country.

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on May 27, 2018

 

                          Australia is

                         THE ONLY

                 Western style democracy

                   WITH NEITHER

a Bill or Charter of Human Rights,

                              NOR

A Federal Anti-Corruption Commission.

 

Do you think this is in the interest of the politicians and bureaucrats, or the citizen?? . . . . . And yet it is the citizen who is the employer; politicians and bureaucrats are the employees. The will of the citizen is primary and inviolable, it is the only source of legitimacy.

 

The rights and liberties of the Australian citizen are routinely under attack, thru legislation and executive decisions  rubber-stamped by a complicit and cowardly judiciary.

The revocation of habeas corpus, or the reversal of burden of proof, for example (that which, for very good reason,  is forever an important right) is now complete, and so the courts have, by their own hand, become impotent and irrelevant:

                            “nonjusticiable,”

                        i.e., simply not subject to judicial review.

But Australia has the second highest paid politicians in the world!

OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK!!!

 

“It would be so nice if something made sense for a change.” Alice, from Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland.

 

political secrecy

Extraordinary new Australian Federal Police powers (and more to come no doubt).

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on May 26, 2018

 

Turnbull and Dutton

 

Announced by Prime Minister Turnbull and Home Affairs Minister Dutton, the Australian Commonwealth government recently decided to extend Australian Federal Police powers, so that the police now need no reason to forcibly stop, detain and question any individual.

However, it is the inviolable right of all free agents, all citizens, to go about their business with no unjustified intrusion by the State. And that is the crux of the matter. The police are now beyond any accountability. They do not have to justify their actions, that it was on ‘reasonable suspicion’ or such like.  Even that low bar of reasonable suspicion has been removed, and in regards to an action by the police in this situation, there can be no appeal by the citizen to any court on any grounds.  The future may well record this decision as the beginning of the end of Australian democracy. I do not exaggerate. The executive government now permits the police to forcibly detain and question any citizen for no specific reason whatsoever.

Why did Turnbull and Dutton do this? The Dandy and the Nazi say the police asked for the new powers. Police asking for greater powers, especially unfretted powers? Shock horror, never heard of it! (Tho regrettably the police are never as enthusiastic about transparency or accountability, as they are about extending their powers). What is their argument, where is the evidence, and what are the implications? A child may well ask for sugary breakfast cereal for all their meals, but to simply ask for something does not make the request reasonable, especially in a situation where the rights and liberty of the citizen are impinged upon– this should only be done after the most careful and detailed consideration, and with general agreement.

Later in the same interview, Turnbull said: “The police are trained to observe behaviour, they pay very close attention to people who are looking anxious or creating a suspicious environment, and respond appropriately”.  So why then remove a legal requirement for reasonable suspicion by the police prior to any intervention, if the police are actually trained to positively identify and respond appropriately to suspicious behaviour?? Turnbull does not make sense. If the police can identify suspicious behaviour, as Turnbull says the police are trained to identify suspicious behaviour, why remove even the low bar of reasonable suspicion?? By his argument the police do not actually need the ‘no reason to detain’ power.

Australian Federal Police Commissioner Andrew Colvin has said he supports the change because such powers would allow his officers to determine whether or not there was, indeed, something to worry about. But Turnbull said the AFP are trained “to observe behaviour, they pay very close attention to people who are looking anxious or creating a suspicious environment, and respond appropriately”. So Colvin says he needs these new powers to do a job that Turnbull says they are already trained to do, and do?? Will they please get their stories straight!

Turnbull admitted it was a “big step”, but said it was necessary. What argument or evidence has Turnbull provided that it is “necessary”?  If the Dandy and the Nazi cannot provide unequivocal and irrefutable reasoning and evidence as to the necessity, or even on the balance of probabilities, then the decision is unjustified. They have not, will not, and indeed can not, provide any independent evidence or facts whatsoever that justify giving the police such powers. To me it is not a “big step”, it is a step not to be taken, yet another example of a State strategy of attack on the rights and liberties of free agents, of the citizens. The so-called War on Terror has given the elites in democracies the opportunity thru legislation they have always sought, to control, and ultimately entirely disempower, the  free agents. You have been, and still are, under attack.

At a later press conference Turnbull added, “the justification for changing the laws … is the safety of the Australian people”. More people die in Australia from bee stings than from terrorist activity, so for the safety of the Australian people do we kill all bees? Is this ‘safety of the Australian people’ claim meaningful? Is the grave loss of liberty justified by the threat? What is the independent advice? Is the decision proportionate? What are the safeguards? When Turnbull says “the justification for changing the laws … is the safety of the Australian people”, that is as a meaningless explanation, and as contrived pseudo-reasoning, as a priest saying something happened because of “God’s will”. Or just plain delusional: the Dandy and the Nazi as super-hero defenders of the safety of the Australian people? Brave, wise, altruistic, honest. Really??

The Dandy and the Nazi are members of the same political party once headed by Robert Menzies. Former Prime Minister Menzies once said that the greatest tragedy that could overcome a country would be for it to implement a policy in defence of liberty, and to lose its own liberty in the process.

Turnbull and Dutton are helping to make that happen.

The Age of the Pig-People

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on March 8, 2018

 

A pig-person in the wasteland

Our thoughts always make the world, and have made the dark world we have now. And this perceived reality has now become fundamentally jumbled and irretrievably irrationalThere can now never be any successful appeal to reason in this ugly reality-made, no check to the corruption or manipulation, as the pig-people entrench their positions of power, influence, and control.

Our thoughts are not solely internal and immaterial: they affect and change us, they affect and change others, and they manifest reality; like attracts like, and a self-reinforcing internecine consensus of like corruption flourishes and becomes the world; some thoughts are not our own, but a consequence of manipulation by others for their own ends — some cannot distinguish this, between their own thoughts, and the substitute thoughts of what others want them to think.

We are happy! Oh, but why are we not happy? We are peaceful! Oh but why can we never make a peace that endures? Are we not civilized and advanced? Oh yes, we are confident and victorious!   Aren’t we??  The pig-people want us to be ignorant and apathetic. We must practice and support critical thinking, discuss and debate statements and ideas critically, bring the illumination of reason and evidence to the pig-people’s lies and confusion. And we must act on our decisions. We must act. We are under attack by the pig-people, and we must stand against them. Else we will, without doubt, become, and deserve to be, obedient compliant peasants in the plutonomy. Do not doubt yourself, be strong and sure, for the pig-people will retaliate: visages that have only ever before sneered or leered, but now so solemn, never so supplicate,  will try to cause great alarm with hysterical entreaties of fear and doubt.

A darkness cloaks the world: the pig-people have the world they want — a world of ignorance, intolerance, violence, secrecy, lies and deception, inequality, exploitation and greed, and a destructive wilful individualism.  Nothing sacred exists here now. And all the while the overwhelming cacophony of deafening vicious arrant thoughts, makes the calm quiet word not ever heard. Pig-people: no wonder, no innocence, and never in the moment.

A darkness cloaks the world:  mechanistic and literal, no quarter given to the divine or sublime.  Those that could have helped restore light to the world were ridiculed or betrayed,  then exiled; and the upright ape now wanders in a pig-people world aimlessly and alone, unaware of the approaching tribulations.

There is only one possibility to bring back the light: in every culture and all memory, myth points the way: flood or fire, but the answer is always the same.

Destroy everything.

In an almost incomprehensible travesty, the dead pity those living in this pig-people world made.

Destroy it all.

If the upright ape survives and has learnt, a glorious future like nothing known before will await.

If the upright ape does not survive, this is no cause for lamentation. The pig-people will at least share that fate.

BARNABY JOYCE ADMITS TO SEX ORGY AT PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on February 18, 2018

 

barnabyjoyce

Australian Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce has admitted that a sex romp organized by him did occur last Thursday in his parliamentary office at Parliament House.

Mr Joyce said it was arranged as a “thank you” to the male benefactors, donors and colleagues, who “have consistently supported me financially and politically, but who expect nothing in return”.

It is believed the women in attendance were staffers from ministerial and member offices. In response to criticism that male bosses should not involve female staff in such activities, Mr Joyce laughed and said the female staff could always look for another job, and that “those who did participate could of course expect high-paying government positions would become open to them.”

Mr Joyce was a vocal opponent of same sex marriage, and used his daughters’ inalienable right to heterosexual marriage as an argument against marriage equality (sic).

He reiterated that he was a “steadfast supporter of traditional marriage”,  and that a “secure relationship with a loving husband” is a woman’s ultimate “protection”. However, Mr Joyce’s wife, Natalie, says  she feels “deceived and hurt” by what had occured.

Denying that he is a dim-witted bumpkin who has little intelligence and no talent, Mr Joyce said “an apple is an apple and it’s not an orange”.

Like all narcissists and taxpayer-money addicts, this bumbling oaf  says the country needs him! No, he  is manifestly inept, sadly deluded, and ultimately irrelevant.