Thecuriousmail’s Weblog

The proposed National Integrity Commission: a new political low.

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on December 16, 2018


Australia is the only Western-style democracy with neither a charter or bill of rights, nor a federal anti-corruption body.

Despite the fact that surveys over decades consistently showed overwhelming community support (85+%) for a federal anti-corruption body, nothing was ever done. This is to the discredit of both major political parties.

All current Federal ministers, including now PM Morrison, have for many years (indeed as recently as a couple of weeks ago) publicly rejected proposals for a federal anti-corruption body as a fringe issue; or not necessary/not required (this of course means that Federal politicians, bureaucrats and police, have never been, and will never be, involved in corrupt activity. A clearly nonsense claim, and indicative of the contempt the government has for the citizen).

Last week PM Morrison announced legislation to enact what he calls a Federal Integrity Commission.

Why now??

Because the government does not have a majority in either House of parliament, and the crossbench and the opposition were going to force thru legislation of their own.

So the government is trying to avoid an embarrassing political defeat in parliament, but also, the government wants to control the end result: it has resisted calls for an anti-corruption body, but if there is going to be one, it will be on the government’s terms (read: a powerless and under-funded body with no public hearings).

What a shameless and disgraceful attempt at manipulation!

What has been the reaction to the government’s proposal?

Former commissioner of the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption David Ipp described the model proposed by the Prime Minister as powerless. “I think he’s created the kind of integrity commission you’d want to have when you didn’t want to have one,” Mr Ipp told ABC Radio Melbourne.

Former Victorian appeals court judge Stephen Charles called for the commission to have far more scope to investigate wrongdoing, and that the proposed funding was “totally inadequate”. Mr Charles also said the definition of corruption should go beyond crimes because some activity was “borderline” and the commission might be prevented from launching investigations under the government proposal.

“Much corruption is not criminal at all,” he told Sky News.

“If you have a government which is receiving very large political donations but which is then favouring those who made donations… that is a form of corruption which does not necessarily involve crime at all.”

Mr Charles said this form of corruption could be dealt with by exposure even if it never went to a prosecution before a court.

Transparency International Australia chief executive Serena Lillywhite welcomed the government decision but signalled a debate ahead over the details. “It is important that Australia adopts the best model for the new commission so that we don’t end up with a toothless tiger,” she said.

Griffith University professor of public law AJ Brown said the commission should have more scope to look at systemic corruption that might not be caught by a criminal law.

“It means corruption will have to be quite bad before it gets on the radar of this agency,” he said.

There is widespread public criticism of the government’s proposal. A reasonable person would ask: is a federal corruption watchdog needed? If so, what is the best terms (powers, funding etc) to achieve that aim?

This has not been the government’s approach; they are corruption-friendly, with an entitlement mentality ( they are ‘born to rule’), and reject any independent scrutiny of their behaviour! For shame!

Not a month ago, in an open letter to the government, 32 former judges (including the former chief justice of the high court Gerard Brennan, and the first female justice of the high court, Mary Gaudron)  said a national anti-corruption watchdog is needed to restore trust among Australians in the nation’s democracy.

Confidence in government and public institutions is at an “all time low”, according to the group, largely because of the suspicion that corruption permeates many government decisions and actions.

“Governments ignore at their peril demands by citizens to combat corruption with vigour,” they say in the letter. “We urge you to immediately establish a strong, effective and independent national integrity commission.”

What was Morrison’s reaction to the open letter??

A federal anti-corruption body was a “fringe” issue, he said. It is a trademark of this government (and political conservatism in general), that issues are rarely addressed on facts and in good faith; principles are replaced by ideology, and the government cynically either exaggerates or dismisses the import of an issue to suit.

A fringe issue?? But no, it isn’t, and I, along with the overwhelming majority of Australians, demand an anti-corruption watchdog, and demand that it is done properly.

Independent MP Andrew Wilkie: “Why,” he asked, “is the current government so anti some sort of federal anti-corruption or integrity authority? If the government has nothing to hide, it will have nothing to fear from the establishment of such an organisation.”

Wilkie you silly man, conservatives are born to rule without any criticism or scrutiny from the plebs.

Drain the swamp?? But where will the swamp creatures go?!

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on December 15, 2018


Australia, amongst many countries (eg Britain and America) has a party parliamentary democracy that is a duopoly –there are two major political parties.

Aside from decision-making negatively influenced by graft and corruption, professional lobbying and such like, the two major political parties have a certain and specific ideological  (political and/or religious) framework that pre-determines any and all conclusions and decisions. And of course party discipline re-enforces this situation.

Citizens have moved beyond this blinkered flawed paradigm, with all its compromises, secrecy, and corruption;  citizens demand a higher standard, the best decision made regarding present circumstances (including real respect for personal rights and freedoms),  with consideration of future implications (eg future generations should not inherit our debt, or a polluted planet), and concluded in good faith.

All decisions should be consistent with reason, common-sense and any available evidence, and must be transparent and encourage a commitment to a shared future.  No more agenda-driven closed-minded idealogues and manipulators, who despise reason, compassion and respect. With a political duopoly there are just two perspectives, but the best decision may well be a combination of the two perspectives. Or neither, but an entirely new perspective. The situation where  0.01% of the population make a decision for all, and that decision is made primarily to be in accord with an ideology/dogma/bias/prejudice –and not on reason, common-sense, and available evidence– failure is almost guaranteed.

And the ideologues will see the country in ruin before they give up.

We must not let this happen.

“Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.” ABRAHAM LINCOLN, speech in the United States House of Representatives, January 12, 1848

Australia’s Terrorism Hysteria Strikes Again: case against Nizamdeen dismissed amid laughter!

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on October 19, 2018


After 4 weeks in solitary confinement in prison, University of New South Wales student, and terrorism suspect Nizamdeen, today had terrorism charges against him dropped by the police.

Mohamed Kamer Nizamdeen, 25, was arrested and charged on August 31 with  collecting or making documents likely to facilitate terrorist acts, after a colleague found a notebook, and gave it to police, allegedly containing details of Mr Nizamdeen’s plans to kill then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and  Deputy PM Julie Bishop.

Despite intense questioning by police, interviews with colleagues, and thorough searches of his home, work, and all electronic devices, the only ‘evidence’ against Nizamdeen were the alleged handwritten notebook entries.

As that notebook is your sole evidence, a reasonable person would ask: is the notebook the property of Nizamdeen? Is the handwriting that of Nizamdeen?

Apparently it is NOT Nizamdeen’s handwriting!

Prosecutor Christina Choi told the Central Local Court in Sydney: “Without a conclusive expert opinion suggesting the defendant was the relevant author, evidence for the charge has been significantly weakened.”

No, evidence for the charge is now non-existent! The notebook was the only ‘evidence’.

Today the terrorism charges were withdrawn and dismissed during a mention at Sydney’s Central Local Court.  Mr Nizamdeen is now believed to be considering civil action against the police. He of course has a case. The taxpayer will surely have to pay a few hundred thousand dollars. Again. Always for the poor decisions and incompetence of others.

Police now acknowledge it is “likely” Mr Nizamdeen is not the author of the notebook, but refuse to apologize for the arrest. The refusal by police to apologize for what is clearly a bungle undermines confidence and trust. Here’s the rub: what if the police realize that–the potential loss of public confidence and trust– but don’t care,  ‘you can all go and get fucked, we’ll do what we want and forget any apology’! That’d be unaccountable police then. What’s the remedy? After all,  the attack on individual freedom and rights, based in terrorism hysteria, was begun (and is perpetuated) by the politicians. No remedy then.

NSW Police Assistant Commissioner Mick Willing, the head of the Counter Terrorism and Special Tactics Command, said counter-terror investigators acted in good faith on the evidence that was available to them.

But no, terrorism hysteria does not excuse or justify incompetent and inept police action. The taxpayer will again  foot the bill for the laughably incompetent Keystone Cops.

{When asked if he came across written on a toilet wall, “I so-and-so of such-and-such address, am a member of Isis and will kill the PM”, Assistant Commissioner Mick Willing would not rule out arresting that person on suspicion of terrorist activity, and that any arrest would be in good faith!

A bit of bad luck then if it’s your name in the toilet wall graffiti!}



Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on September 23, 2018


A deliberate policy by governments of both major political parties to increase the price of tobacco products in Australia, now means Australia has the most expensive cigarettes in the world.

What is the reasoning behind this??

  1. Smokers place a significant burden on the health system, so should pay for that.
  2. Smoking is unhealthy and should be discouraged thru extra taxation imposts.

So let’s look at the facts.

Who smokes? Studies consistently show that the vast majority of smokers are in lower socio-economic groups, with lower than average incomes. So any additional financial impost is of course magnified, and it soon reaches a  disproportionate, wholly excessive level.


After all, the high costs do not deter a rich person from smoking, and so smoking may actually become a status symbol!

What are the average health care costs for smokers?

I could not find reliable statistics for Australia. I am surprised by this. So let’s look at England, a similar demography.

2.6 billion pounds.

2.6 billion pounds for about 50 million people, which equals about 52 pounds per person. 52 x (Australian population of) 25,000,000 equals 1.3 billion pounds, which converts to about 2.6 billion Australian dollars.

Ok then, what about alcohol? How much does it cost the NHS to treat alcohol related diseases in England?

3.5 billion pounds! What?? And this doesn’t include alcohol related costs to law enforcement, courts, and prisons, nor the alcohol related social misery.

$30 for a bottle of beer then?? But it just won’t happen.

Politicians won’t increase prices on alcohol like they have on tobacco, because the alcohol and hospitality industries donate millions of dollars to the political parties, and lobby politicians each day. Medical experts are increasingly saying there is no safe or healthy level of alcohol consumption. Tobacco and alcohol both unsafe and unhealthy, but only smoking attacked. Such hypocrisy!

So what, smokers should still pay their fair share. We live in a user-pays world.

But is it really user-pays? Really??

“According to The Cost of Privilege research paper, which drew on data from Treasury, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the University of Melbourne’s HILDA survey, legal tax concessions such as income splitting between spouses, superannuation concessions and negative gearing tax breaks totalled more than $135 billion a year. These concessions cost more than the total of the four main welfare payments, including Newstart, the aged pension, disability benefits and family assistance – which totalled around $124 billion a year, ABC News reported

“Put another way, $37 from every Australian worker a week to keep on keeping Australia’s richest 20 per cent rich,” Kasy Chambers, Anglicare’s executive director told ABC News. “The system isn’t broken, it’s actually been designed this way to benefit people at the higher end of the income spectrum more than those at the lower end,” she said.

The report cited the example of negative gearing concessions, where half of the foregone revenue from negative gearing goes to the top 20 per cent of Australian households, while just 6.2 per cent of the benefit goes to the bottom 20 per cent. This makes sense given that lower income households would not typically be in a position to purchase an investment property or shares to derive negative gearing benefits from.

Similarly, the report stated, more than 80 per cent of the savings from the capital gains tax concession go to the wealthiest 20 per cent of households, while just two per cent goes to the poorest 20 per cent of households.”


So this is user-pays?? A fair go??

“The Cost of Privilege report, prepared by Per Capita, models four household types to show how these concessions and tax breaks work. One of the couples we modelled, Tim and Michelle, own their own home. They have two children in private schools, top health insurance, and two investment properties. Michelle doesn’t work, and Tim runs a small business. Each year, Tim and Michelle get $99,708 in concessions from the taxpayer, or $1917 per week. That is well over twice as much as a couple with two children on Newstart, and nearly three times as much as a family with one parent on the Disability Support Pension. Tim and Michelle do this by getting concessions on their superannuation, negatively gearing their investment properties to minimise their taxable income, and getting tax breaks for private schools and private health insurance. They also get generous Capital Gains Tax exemptions.”

And we haven’t even discussed the alarming rate of obesity in Australia.  $30 hamburgers then?? But it just won’t happen.

I think smoking is unhealthy, and the government should discourage it by such things as education campaigns, and laws that outlaw smoking in certain areas etc.

But what both of the major political parties are doing through taxation in regards to tobacco pricing in Australia is unconscionable. Considering Australia has the second highest paid politicians in the world, and the highest paid top government bureaucrats in the world, their decisions are dishonest and contrived, and they speak with the moral authority of a paedophile priest.

Party parliamentary democracy in Australia has clearly reached the point of  an illegitimate and prejudiced authority. It is selectively attacking some citizens through taxation and cost imposts — indeed those citizens who are least able to afford the additional financial imposts– attacking citizens in general through high power costs, high housing costs, ever-increasing government fees and charges, and all-the-while, accelerating the rate of inequality in society.  Do not think this is accidental. You are under attack; you are meant to support the privileged.

Prime Minister Morrison announces Royal Commission into aged care (but no commitment to a solution).

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on September 22, 2018

scott morrison

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has announced a Royal Commission into Aged Care, Quality and Safety.

Since 1997 there has been 20 inquiries, reviews and such like, into aged care, with only about 10% of the total recommendations ever actually having been enacted by the government.

So is the issue that we don’t know the details or extent of the abuse and neglect of the elderly??

Or is the issue we never do anything about it??

The latter I am certain.

I support the royal commission provided that the terms of reference are not unreasonably constrained, and that the parliament give a commitment to enacting all recommendations –all, 100% of the recommendations from the royal commission–  without delay and without amendment.

Australians are tired of problems never solved because of political incompetence and corruption, and entrenched dogma or ideological bias.

Politicians are employees, employed by the Australian people to do a job. Fix it.

But don’t be surprised if it isn’t fixed.

Disgracefully, there are 3 kinds of Australians you don’t want to be, as you are subject to a different standard –a lower standard, abused, patronized, and ignored.

  1. Indigenous
  2. Orphan children in care
  3. Disabled or elderly in care

 “The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”  Hubert H.Humphrey.

Australia fails that moral test.


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 steeply rising utility costs) and quality of life issues (eg congestion), with some economic considerations (eg high housing costs, especially for first home buyers and to renters, and low wage growth).

A generation ago in Australia–only a generation ago– the cost of a new house was 3 times the annual median gross income. This meant that many people earning less, sometimes much less, than the median annual income, could still afford a mortgage, and so could own their own house. Also bear in mind that this was on a single income; the wife usually stayed at home to look after the children.
But today, 2018
Median Australian annual income — $55,000
Median Brisbane house price — $673,000
Median Sydney house price — $1, 144, 217
Medium Melbourne house price — $882,082
And guess where the concentration of jobs, health services, education facilities etc are?
What a monumental failure of political planning! There was less reason for the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution! Apathy rules now perhaps.

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. But he is either deluded or a liar –the facts don’t support his claims,  and he is well known for an-almost unconditional support of even the most corrupt and violent police.

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. It is believed that all 3 attending police were equipped with body cameras, and yet not one had activated their camera. The police knew exactly what they were attending, and a reasonable people would think it prudent to have activated the body camera. It is likely there will be no video footage of the incident, when the attending police had the opportunity of recording. Convenient, isn’t it? Not to mention disturbing.

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! A 23 yo Adelaide woman was recently charged with being a member of a terrorist group. She faces 10 years jail.  Prosecution evidence is very flimsy, and even they don’t claim she has made a threat to anyone about anything. Their evidence that she was a member of a terrorist group is that she may have been singing a ‘pro-terrorist’ song!

“At the time Ms Abdirahman-Khalif pleaded not guilty, her lawyer Craig Caldicott told reporters outside court that the law was against his client. “She’s not guilty because to sing a song in your bedroom last time I checked wasn’t an offence,” he said.”

Three police, ostensibly trained and professional, equipped with pistols, tasers, batons, pepper spray, and body cameras which they don’t turn on, attend an incident of a man armed with a knife, and in short order, shoot him dead, having not used and seemingly never considered, non-lethal force. A young woman is arrested as a terrorist suspect, and the “evidence” is she may or may not have been singing a song.

Really?? Who is the terrorist? What has happened to the values of Australian society?? Unaccountable police have been let loose by their political masters to be the thugs and bullies they want to be.


(But it doesn’t just happen in Australia.

What is happening here?? Too much command and control; too little reason and common-sense.)

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? Every 5 seconds a child under 5 in the world dies from hunger, or causes directly related to malnourishment.  Where is the protest and condemnation of this? No to abortion, buy yes to starvation say?

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.