Fine Art with a paint roller

This is an opinion piece centered around attitudes discussed in Australia during the week of December  14th-20th...

So much static in newspaper comments sections this week after what has come to be known as the #sydneysiege. 

I read all of the papers, even the horrifically biased ones. I read them all, to glean the facts from the speculation, and observe in wide-eyed wonder the journalistic leaps and assumptions that get made without basis every day. By professional journalists.

And the comments sections are just lousy with people trying to pin everything that happens on the opposing political party (aren't we collectively sick of that juvenile partisan buck-passing yet? Don't we expect more?), and the never-ending battle between the 'right' and the 'left' (whatever they are).

I don't belong to either demographic. I'm rabidly equal rights for women, but in no way feminist. I'm a humanist- I believe in equality, not the splintered misandrist embarrassment feminism has been allowed to become under the hateful watch of Jessica Valenti and Jess Zimmerman. 

I believe in sustainable energy, but also in mandatory minimum prison sentences, which puts me on both sides of the equation. I am heavily pro-CCTV for crime prevention and to aid in prosecution 'after the fact', but believe wholeheartedly that asylum seekers are not getting a fair go in Australia. I'm a big fan of mil-spec tech, but only for those who have been adequately screened and trained.

So what?

When talking about Man Haron Monis, the utterly abhorrent perpetrator of the killings of two innocent people in Martin Place this week, reactions have fallen into two main categories:

1. Muslims are a threat and must be stopped.
2. Australia is a shining example of multicultural success, we must encourage tolerance.

When examining these assertions prima facie, one seems negative, and two seems positive.

And positive is always better, right? Not when it runs counter to logic...

We witnessed the birth of the #IllRideWithYou campaign on twitter, an outpouring of support for Muslims by a population desperate to distance itself from The Cronulla Riots 9 years ago.

And I read waves of comments and posts from people in the community who defended religious freedom in Australia, supported Islam, and accused anyone who spoke against Islam in the context of the siege as Islamophobic, racist, of being a redneck, or a bogan.

But it's not that simple. The facts don't lie on the side of one political ideology or the other. Some people aren't racist or phobic of any religion per se,  but their inbuilt pattern recognition software has logged an inordinate number of spikes in the column for Islamic violence (or violence perpetrated by followers of Islam, whether they were lone-wolves or card carrying members of ISIS). Some others would put forward this has more to do with media bias. And they may even be right. The same can be said for christianity, too.

We've gotten so caught up in what is the definition of terrorism, and the finger pointing that comes with anyone suggesting that Monis fits the bill due to his recent shift in allegiance between Islamic denominations, that we've ignored a simple fact.

If someone identifies as Catholic, then we consider them Catholic. If a Catholic identifies as Christian, then we accept them as Christian. Even though the act of being a Catholic biblically (not a word) precludes them from Christianity, due to Exodus 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.", and John 14:6 "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

I'm not religious (we'll get to that), but the point here is that the bible (which is the canonical collection of texts sacred to Christianity), is the playbook for Christianity, and if you ignore the playbook- you're off the team. Simply put- logically, Catholics are not Christians. But if they call themselves that, it's only pedantic losers like me who intensively studied Philosophy for years at University that call them out on it.

In the case of Monis, he identified as ISIS, which is a jihadist sect of Sunni Islam. Therefore, who are we to say he isn't? Commentators are at pains to point out he was a "lone gunman" who worked without support, but that's impossible. Even though he was considered a lunatic by his own people, someone still gave him a shotgun. He has been enabled by women all throughout his adult life (and as it transpires, killed one of them). If he claims ISIS, he's ISIS. By their own definition, they encourage and supply tactical information to lone wolves who they've never met, but who have answered the call to arms.

Others would argue that his mental state is where my assertion falls down. He was a crazy misogynist attention-seeker, not a terrorist. So... ISIS isn't packed to the mashrabiya with crazy misogynist attention-seekers? Wait, isn't that their core constituency?

Also, many in Islam protest that ISIS and Al Quaeda don't represent "true" Islam. What is true Islam? What makes one interpretation of a Bronze Age creation myth any more relevant than a slightly different one?  Or more relevant than Buddhism or Pastafarianism? If all of these religions claim to be right, why pay attention to any of them? Especially when none among them can offer proof? You can't come up with a slightly different version of science that also passes the repeatability test every time, that's why we only have one science. Everything else is just mythology.

But all of that is just semantics really. It's academic. None of it brings the victims back. 

But it can stop it from happening again.

You see, the people who call "tolerance!" and the unconditional support that #IllRideWithYou offers, are making things worse. They don't mean to, and I know it. They mean well. They are being positive. But that blind acceptance of Islam is illogical.

More specifically, blind acceptance of anything is illogical.

The LGBTQI+ communities, and those of us who support them, have been campaigning for marriage equality rights in Australia for years. Many of those who said #IllRideWithYou support this campaign too. And while it's noble to offer support to a community of people who perceive being a homosexual as not only a sin, but a punishable crime against God; is it right?

I'm old enough to remember the protests against apartheid in South Africa. Protests against disgusting and discriminatory views against people were not only absolutely deserving of equality, but who were in fact indigenous to the nation (Sound upsettingly (again, not a word) familiar?)

We didn't support South Africa. We actively boycotted and sanctioned and shamed them until they saw reason. We didn't offer to ride with them. Not at least, until they adjusted their disgusting and hurtful behaviour. And they did.

So why exactly do people who are pro Gay marriage think it's positive to support members of a religion that actively not only persecutes gay people, but imprisons or kills them? Why aren't we having a national dialogue that starts with "If you want our support, it's a two-way street"?

And how many success stories came from that hashtag? *facepalm*

Did it occur to all of the privileged white Aussie girls with their imported makeup and thigh tattoo-revealing H&M skirts that most Muslim women wouldn't want to be seen dead with them? That the way they dress and flaunt themselves is an affront to Muslim decency? That the person who started the hashtag wasn't even sure about the actual factual circumstances around which she started it, that no one consulted the Muslim community, and that it's fucking insulting to think skinny white girls from Brisbane are somehow superior to Muslim women from Western Sydney, who need 'rescuing' by members of a culture they don't naturally associate with?

People are calling me a racist right now- an Islamophobe. Islam isn't a race. And I'm phobic of every single religion and toxic ideology on this planet. It's 2014, religion isn't needed any more- we have science now. We have logic (not that the 3/4's of the population of the world who actively ascribe to a religion reflects that).

But I'm not trying to hate on Islam here. Islam is irrelevant to me, just like all religion. I want facts, not invisible friends and sky fairies. I'm trying to point out the dangers inherent in painting fine art with a paint roller.

Monis was an asylum seeker. He was granted residency here, and he repaid that by sexually assaulting tens of women, and killing two. He also killed a man.

What does that tell you?

It tells me that all of the people bleating on about how Australia needs to just open the gates to asylum seekers are illogical, and dangerous.

But as I tried to illustrate in the fifth paragraph- it's not just black and white. 

This fact doesn't therefore excuse Abbott and Morrison's brutal war on asylum seekers. There is a balance, and we as a nation need to find it. We need to find the balance between screening potential threats to the country like Monis, and at the same time treating asylum seekers with dignity, respect, and compassion. That's who we are as a country. Those are qualities we have.

We need to stand up to Islam and say "(Some of) your collective attitudes have no place in this country, and we will only stand beside you when you take responsibility for those attitudes." We also need to implement their Islamic banking system tomorrow, because it's awesome.

We need to stop being so scared and conditioned to not speak out against Islam for fear of having fingers pointed at us by people who accuse of us being hateful. I'm sure the Catholic Church accused Nicolaus Copernicus of the same thing, but how wrong were they?

The movement of blind acceptance is so strong in this country. The majority of people here have never seen a war or truly suffered as a consequence of religion. Empathy is in overdrive, and the sheep are so quick to jump on the support bandwagon, without ever asking the hard questions, or saying the hard statements.

Islam needs to change if it is to ever be respected in Australia. In short, it needs to stop being Islam. The Catholic Church needs to stop raping young boys and covering it up, also- to stop being Catholic. And people without religion need to do exactly the same thing- the right thing, within our shared societal contract.

If you accept every Muslim, poisonous ideologues like Monis will kill your countrymen or families. There are people just like Monis out there right now, who have slipped through the cracks- and blind empaths are out there too, riding with them. To be clear, there aren't a lot, but any number higher than one is enough to make this whole nation mourn. If you accept every conservative right-winger, poisonous ideologues among them will also kill people in the community. Blind acceptance isn't a virtue.

Not all Muslims are hardline, but they are, by definition, anti qualities of acceptance that the majority of Australian's hold dear. If they want acceptance- give acceptance. It's their turn. 

The problem is, Islam can't change. It can't be progressive. It can't lose the bad parts and ramp up the good. Because it's set- the laws are already written. The only way Muslims can change in a way that is acceptable and in line with modern thinking, is to stop being Muslim.

Not going to happen.

And if we were allowed to throw poison-spewing Australian citizens in jail or to deport them, talkback radio would cease to exist.

So what can we do? 

Think about your position on matters. Educate yourself. Look at both sides of each story and ask yourself where the ethical position lies. Don't just hashtag a MEME on Instagram then go to Stereosonic or Summadayze and get hammered and high.

The number of thoughtless people in this country is staggering. The herd mentality is terrifying, but ubiquitous. So many people think they are moral but only act from self interest. We as a culture have massive problems relating to our own attitudes. 

Maybe it's easier to call someone an Islamophobe than it is to look inside and see the gaps in our own logic.

Stop making excuses for things and indignantly shouting down anyone who you think is being negative- it's not all fluffy puppy land out there. Confront it, and only then you can change it...

Otherwise, nothing changes (just like with the swinging voters who voted in Abbott). And you will only have yourselves to blame.

Nudity, Dirty Energy, Cosmetics, and the nature of being Human.

Robyn Lawley is a celebrity model with 66,000 more Instagram followers than I have.

She's a lot better looking than I am, so I'm not mad about it; and while some may see what I'm about to write as a direct criticism of her, it isn't. 

I'd like to shine a light on a behaviour the vast majority of we who call ourselves human share, that being denial, and maybe a peppering of ignorance also.

Let's get to it...

We live on a molten ball of iron and rock, hurtling through space at thousands of kilometres per second, surrounded by a tenuous wisp of atmosphere; beyond that? Endless, dark, vast, unknowable space. There is only one planet we exist on. Finite resources. Finite atmosphere. Danger everywhere.

So maybe a dose of denial is a necessary prerequisite to human happiness?

While looking at horrible faux-news clickbait sites that survive on ad revenue from page views, I saw this picture:

 

It's from Robyn's Instagram account, and is in protest of current and proposed coal mining here in Australia. If you read the comments (some of which will make you want to kill yourself if you have a brain and understand things like logic), you will get a feel for both sides of the argument.

I, myself, support Robyn's side of the argument. The Abbott Government removing funding for renewables and throwing open contract after contract to their friends in big coal is definitely worth the scrutiny of a future Royal Commission. It feels like every move they make is a short-sighted grab at cash from those who destroy our environment most, and it's pretty heartbreaking to witness not just that, but the brainwashed small-minded idiots who argue that jobs are more important than the environment (as if there is only one type of job available), or that 'clean coal' isn't an oxymoron.

So- Robyn made her point (I see how getting naked to make that point was guaranteed to get her message out their quickly and effectively. It's a shame that that's what guarantees virality, but she didn't make the rules, she's just using them for everyone's benefit).

Here are her words-

OK, so, to my mind, fair point. 

Robyn spoke her mind from a perspective of feeling that she couldn't sit on this information any longer. So she used her considerable social media reach to spread her message, using a proven trick of advertising 'sex sells' to guarantee virality (and to no doubt win her social media accounts a few new followers also).

I agree with all of this so far.

But what I don't agree with is not the fact she posed naked for the picture, but that she wrote her message in lipstick. I posted a comment (which I will include below), but Robyn didn't reply. I'm sure she has more important things to do than reply to every comment, so I understand. But I would have liked to have heard a response from her about what I thought.

I'm not going to go into detail about the negative impact of lipstick on the environment, on animals, or on human health, but I have linked relevant Google searches to each so all of you intelligent humans can do your own research and not just believe everything I say.

But if massive de-forestation, cancer, lead-poisoning, negative effects on unborn children, or vivisection aren't reason enough to evaluate what it is you're smearing across your mouth, let's look at this instead:

Lipstick has one stated purpose- to make women to feel glamorous and desirable. It does this (apparently) by using colour and texture to highlight the mouth area, thereby bringing attention to it. 

Glamour is a matter of perspective, as is desirability. My personal perspective is that women's mouths are perfect exactly the way they are, and don't need any help to make them more so. Also, I just won't kiss anyone who is wearing lipstick (not even Robyn Lawley). Some guys fetishise it, but some guys also fetishise drinking piss or having sex with their sister, so that doesn't strike me as a solid basis for argument. Having said that, I don't claim to speak for all men- I'd just like to make some points for people to consider.

And of course there are the girls who say "I don't wear makeup for boys, stupid!", and I see them all the time grossly exaggerating their lip lines as if we are idiots who can't see, and asking "Why can't I get a boyfriend?" when the lower half of their face is covered in a layer of whale fat, preservatives, lead, and oils (for no reason other than vanity).

I know for a fact that those girls wouldn't do it at all, and would never have thought of doing it if someone before them didn't tell them to. Like people's choice in religion- if they were raised in isolation with a family of scientists, none of them would be Christian, Muslim, or Shinto. They'd just be well informed people who weren't lied to.

Just like smoking (zero benefit to the user, great financial benefit to rich people who couldn't care less about you or the planet you live on), cosmetics is a staggeringly enormous industry that feeds on insecurity, and invents new ways for you to feel bad about yourself so they can sling you some new potion for youth/hotness that you not only don't need, but is actively bad for you.

And women buy into it, not only supporting it, but defending it.

So here's my statement- Lipstick isn't a necessary thing. It doesn't serve a real purpose (unless you fetishise it). It is a product that has a negative effect on people, animals, and the environment; solely for the benefit of rich people you wouldn't like if you met them. A huge number of men don't like it, and some actively avoid it. Just like diamonds, they have been marketed to you as a crucial element of femininity, when the thing that makes you feminine is the way you carry yourself (it's not exclusively therefore, sole property of women).

If you know all of this, and you still elect to wear lipstick, then that's your business. I'm not here to criticise people like that. If you're armed with information, and you make choices after gathering that information, then I respect the fact you went to the trouble to inform yourself. I may not respect your decision, but a person's decision is their own, and other people don't get a say in it. 

But a decision isn't a decision unless, armed with the facts, you have decided.

But don't be like all of the stupid girls on Robyn Lawley's comment section for the above picture, saying how stupid the Government is for destroying the environment by being pro-coal, while their Instagram pages are packed full of selfies where they are never seen without (forest eliminating Palm Oil packed) lipstick. Where they say they love animals and would never hurt them, but wear a product that is the main reason why species of animals (including apes) are threatened with extinction from habitat destruction.

Don't be like the even more stupid girls who for some crazy reason think that Rihanna is worth taking life advice from, or who is worth any kind of adoration. She's not a 'Queen'. Seriously you guys.

Just because someone tells you something, doesn't make it true. Like religion. The cosmetics industry, the fashion industry, the tabloid press, your Sisters and Mothers and Cousins; they have all said lipstick equals glamour. And because you trust these sources, you simply believe it. This is not what critical thinkers do! People you love can be ill-informed or wrong, so simply swallowing whatever they tell you is a terrible way to find your way through life. 

People influence people, and that is my problem with Robyn Lawley. She's a woman who thinks, is passionate about causes, is successful- there is so much about her to admire. But she took the bait that lipstick is a positive thing, and through her influence, passes on that message subconsciously to anyone who listens.

This is the greatest marketing trick in history, and the shame of it is, the people who do it are in the main completely unaware.

I posted to Robyn's comment section because, as a thinker and environmentalist, I believe if she knew the full story behind the lipstick industry and the product itself, she would re-evaluate her stance on it. Would she become anti lipstick? No one knows but her. But like I said before, knowing the full story is always a good place to start.

I wish this conversation would spread, that more women became aware of the facts, and made their minds up not from peer pressure or viral marketing, but from facts.

And I wish women who are inspirational and influential for others would stop helping the cosmetics industry get rich by destroying the environment, poisoning people, and testing on animals- all based on a lie, that you need their products to be beautiful.

I should mention Megan Gale here too. She's the brand Ambassador for L'Oréal's 'Colour of Hope' campaign. 

The campaign is basically a way for the company to sell more product and get an edge over their competitors. In reality it's a way to give yourself cancer. The sad part is that a portion of the proceeds of lipstick sales go to Ovarian Cancer research. Is that irony? Ever since Alanis Morisette I haven't been able to tell.

So Megan Gale (who I have hung out with, who is beautiful and hilarious, and who I am 100% confident has no idea), is getting paid to sell a product containing cadmium, mercury, aluminum, cobalt, titanium, manganese, chromium, copper and nickel, which both cause cancer, as well as harm the development of your baby’s brain, kidney and nervous system, create learning or behavior problems, and/or cause you to miscarry.

So who loves a 'strong red lip' now?

Some people know the risks and do it anyway. Like Lily Allen who happily smoked through her pregnancy and then looked really sad when her baby died in front of her. Was it a direct result of her smoking? I'm not the coroner, so I can't say. But I can say she rolled the dice, and that makes her a terrible person.

Even if you use a vegan lipstick, that doesn't make it safe for you or your baby. And even if you crush berries from your garden onto your lips as a lipstick that has no negative environmental or health effects, there is still a negative ethical effect:

People may copy you. And if they don't know how you do it, or if they don't have access to that method, or if they're just lazy, they may buy products that do have negative effects. Same reason why vaping isn't harmless- it continues the glamourisation of something negative, thereby creating a demand/market for cigarettes or lipstick (my two least favourite things that people use).

Basically, if you buy into the bullshit that lipstick is sexy, you're one of those people who believe that diamonds are rare and valuable, or that Tony Abbott isn't a liar. People only believe those things because someone else said it was true, and you never checked your sources.

Some people have asked me "What about eye makeup, do you hate that too?" Actually, I really like it and enjoy seeing it on people. The main difference being (if it's ethically sourced) that you don't ingest the component chemicals leading to long-term exposure/poisoning; and it doesn't go in my mouth if I kiss you.

As for anti-ageing creams etc- do some research! Most of it is utter horseshit, some of it actually exacerbates the problem, and a teeny tiny number of products actually work.

I'm not trying to tell you what to do, or how to think here... I'm just begging you to think. To actually think. And to share your thoughts with other humans.

You want glamour? You want sexy? Nothing is more glamorous or sexy than a woman who thinks for herself.

Nothing.

Here is my comment to Robyn:

 

This just in- I saw this on The Guardian site today, and felt it definitely warranted inclusion.

Text-

No industry has aligned itself more closely with the breast cancer movement than the cosmetics industry. It’s long flooded the market with pink ribbon products: pink ribbon lipstick, pink ribbon nail polish, pink ribbon perfume.

The NFL's breast cancer scam sells bunk science to profit off pink clothes

Karuna Jaggar

Read more

Yet while they prominently claim to care about women with breast cancer, their pink ribbon products all too often actually increase risk of the disease – and, as if that’s not bad enough, they’re also pushing toxic products on women in active cancer treatment.
Look Good Feel Better is a psychosocial support program run by the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC), the largest national trade group for the cosmetics industry, and the American Cancer Society (ACS), the nation’s largest cancer charity. They hold free workshops that give beauty tips and complimentary makeup kits to women in cancer treatment – support that some women understandably value while facing a cancer diagnosis and treatments that may alter their appearance.
Member companies of the Personal Care Products Council (like Avon and Estee Lauder) donate cosmetic products for the kits given to cancer patients. The American Cancer Society administers the program nationwide. Cosmetologists donate their time to run the workshops. It’s all selfless altruism, until you look a bit closer.
Cosmetics and personal care products are notoriously unregulated and full of toxic chemicals, and for years activists have been pushing back on cosmetics companies putting pink ribbons on products containing chemicals linked to breast cancer. But many of the Look Good Feel Better kits contain what are commonly referred to by regulators and scientists as “chemicals of concern”, including carcinogens and hormone disruptors.
Carcinogens are implicated in directly causing cancer, and hormone disruptors can increase breast cancer risk by messing with our body’s hormonal system. When these are products used daily – and the average woman uses 12 personal care products each day containing 168 unique ingredients – these doses add up.
The ACS claims that “the benefit of this program outweighs the risk”, which demonstrates a shocking commitment to the cosmetics industry and a blatant disregard for patient well-being.
These chemicals of concern do not just increase breast cancer risk: some may actually interfere with breast cancer treatment. Most breast cancers are hormone-driven and common treatments target the body’s hormonal system. Many scientists are concerned about the ways hormone-disrupting chemicals in our daily lives can increase the risk of breast cancer. Some hormone disruptors – including methylparaben, which is in concealer and face wipes the ACS is giving to cancer patients – have been shown in a lab to interfere with Tamoxifen, a common hormonal breast cancer treatment.
Currently, no one ensures that cosmetic products are completely safe before they come on the market. Personal care products are regulated by approximately two pages of federal law that has only been updated once in the past 76 years. The Food and Drug Administration lacks the authority to require manufacturers to test personal care products for safety before they are sold to consumers (or given to cancer patients). While the European Union has banned 1,300 chemicals from use in cosmetics, the United States has banned fewer than one dozen. The Personal Care Products Council spends millions of dollars lobbying against cosmetic safety regulations to make sure it stays that way.
Furthermore, cosmetic manufacturers do not have to disclose the ingredients that constitute “fragrance” due to a regulatory gap in the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1973. The term “fragrance” often hides ingredients that have not been assessed for safety and often contain phthalates and parabens; “fragrance” was listed as an ingredient on numerous products in Look Good Feel Better bags, including in mascara.
If the PCPC truly cares about consumer safety as it claims to, the group should hold member companies to a much higher standard of safety instead of lobbying against regulations that would make personal care products less likely to help cause cancer.
And the American Cancer Society must stop protecting the cosmetics industry and started protecting women’s health. They can provide the program’s benefit without the toxic harms. The ACS knows that breast cancer is not pretty, no matter how many pink ribbons are attached – and no matter how many free toxic cosmetics are given to cancer patients.

Falling on your own sword.

Video here.

There is a lot of international debate lately about banning burqas/hijabs, mainly for the reason that those who wear them are essentially disguised, in a society that doesn't really go for people walking around in disguises (for security reasons).

Of course, some Muslims see this as discrimination (although you're not allowed to claim discrimination when banned from holding hands with your wife in public in Dubai), because it is convenient to shift the blame to the country you're in, as opposed to your own personal conduct within the culture of that country.

The funny thing is, in the news at the moment, there exists the story of a 46 year old Muslim woman from Sydney (Carnita Matthews), who has been jailed for making a false complaint.

"The mother of seven was stopped in June by a police officer at Woodbine for a random breath test. She later filed a police complaint alleging the officer who pulled her over had tried to pull off her hijab, which concealed her entire face except for her eyes.

The court was told that after being issued an infringement notice for not properly displaying her P-plates, the 46-year-old branded the officer "a racist" and claimed he only booked her because of what she was wearing.

"You look at me and see me wearing this and you couldn't handle it. All cops are racist.""

OK, great. After this, she went to a police station and made a (false) complaint. "However, the court was told that an officer who three days later accepted a statutory declaration from a burqa-clad woman he assumed to be Ms Matthews failed to check her identification.

Ms Matthews' lawyer, Stephen Hopper, said there was no way for police to prove that his client was the one who signed the statutory declaration at Campbelltown police station on June 10. Mr Hopper said that meant Ms Matthews should not have been charged with the offence of making a false complaint to police."

Do you know what else that means? It means one idiotic woman, has made a big news story about what a liar she is, and at the same time JUSTIFIED WHY BURQAS/HIJABS SHOULD BE BANNED IN WESTERN COUNTRIES!!!

If her own defence is going to turn around and claim it could have been anyone in a hijab that gave the statutory declaration that day, then it goes to reason that because of that fact, no-one should be allowed to wear one, or at the least, remove it for identification purposes.

And if that is such a massive problem for you, then move to a Muslim country, it's that simple.

Of course this will provoke the usual calls of racism. But there are things I can't do in Muslim countries. If I want to do those things, I have to move here. So why different rules for Islam?

Stephen Hopper, in the pursuit of an excuse for one Muslim client (and who failed, because she's in jail), has pulled the rug out from under the cause of all Muslims in the West, who wish to observe their religious style of dress. Carnita Matthews, has sold out the cause for all of her brothers and sisters in Islam, to get out of a ticket.

Just wow.

Addendum 21/06/2011:

Remember when I said "Carnita Matthews, has sold out the cause for all of her brothers and sisters in Islam, to get out of a ticket"?

The Police Minister has in the press today made clear he intends to tighten up identification procedures for those who wish to hide their faces for religious purposes- Carnita has sold out her brothers and sisters in Islam.

When I think of Islam, I think of people drawing from a rich and extensive history of the written word, of intellectual thought, of science.

Increasingly however, we are confronted by images like the ones above, of aggressive Muslims shouting and acting violently in public, instead of engaging in reasoned argument, whenever things don't go their way (interestingly enough, things did go their way in the above picture, but it turned violent anyway).

(Edit: A lot of the faces in those pictures are now dead because they left Australia to join ISIS, which at the time of this post didn't yet exist).

I hate to sound like a radio talkback DJ after ratings, but I'm sick of it. I'm sick of scenes like this one in Australia. I'm sick of shouting and threats, hiding behind religion. Don't get me wrong, I'm sick of white Australians acting badly too.

I don't care whether jails work or not. I don't care if they're just breeding grounds for future criminals. If someone acts violently, they should be removed from society, and thrown in a dark hole. And if they don't learn the first time, don't ever let them out the second time. I'm sick of civil libertarians holding society to ransom over the 'rights' of criminals.

I'm sick of all of it, because law, and particularly order have become a joke.

I would much rather a society where people are raised right, with a sense of family, community, balance. But we don't have that society, and we're never going to have it.

Lock them up, and let them rot. If they're not from here, send them back. And fuck their 'rights'. Because the people who were born here, and would like to grow old here, are under attack from violent offenders, and it has to stop.

In Muslim countries we have no rights, but of course we're not allowed to use their laws on them here.

Ms. Matthews is a joke- a stupid woman who makes Muslims look like unintelligent criminals, hiding behind the symbol of her own oppression for personal gain. She broke the law, but escaped jail, and the absolute idiots in the photographs who support her celebrate that fact today.

When all they have done, is brought increased police scrutiny and security measures against their religion, over what? A minor driving infringement.

Where is their leadership? Why have they allowed this to happen? Why didn't she just pay the fine instead of turning this into a three-ring media circus?

Because she is stupid. Her supporters are stupid. And now everyone who covers their head will have to remove their burqa/hijab when dealing with police- exactly the thing Carnita Matthews had a problem with in the first place.

"WOMEN wearing the burqa or other head covering may be ordered to remove it to identify themselves in the wake of the Carnita Matthews case.

Police Minister Mike Gallacher has revealed that police do not currently have the legal power to require women to show their face if the women refuse on religious or cultural grounds.

He said he wanted the law tightened up.

"Police powers in relation to face coverings are not clear," Mr Gallacher said.

"It’s time to address that."

He said he had spoken to rank and file police who wanted the situation clarified.

Any decision on whether to appeal the controversial judgment by Judge Clive Jeffreys would not be made until after the judge hands down the reason for his decision which is expected tomorrow.

The government is also considering passing new laws requiring people who make complaints against police, or in the case of witnesses giving evidence, to have to provide at least one fingerprint and their signature.

This follows the finding by the judge that he could not be certain that it was Ms Matthews who made the statutory declaration complaining about the officer who stopped her car because the person who handed the document in to the police station wore a burqa.

Mr Gallacher said he was waiting until Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione returned next week to discuss exactly what needed to be done.

He said he did not expect this to inflame community anger about women wearing full face coverings.

He said he had been told that there was nothing in Muslim culture or religion that stopped women from identifiying themselves in certain circumstances.

Yesterday, Ms Matthews avoided jail because her identity could not be proven.

Ms Matthews, 47, from Woodbine, in Sydney's southwest, had been sentenced to six months in jail for making a deliberately false statement that a policeman tried to forcibly remove her burqa because he was a racist.

But judge Clive Jeffreys said yesterday he was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was Mrs Matthews who made the racism accusation because the person who complained to police was wearing a burqa at the time.

The absurdity of the law is that, to reach the level of proof of identity to make the case, Mrs Matthews would have been required to identify herself by lifting her burqa at the police station - what started the uproar in the first place.

More than a dozen Muslim supporters linked arms and began chanting "Allah Akbar" as they stormed out of Downing Centre Court with Mrs Matthews concealed behind them.

Tempers rose and they began jostling with police after several members of the group attacked cameramen.

It marked a stark difference from their behaviour minutes earlier, when they had quietly assembled outside the lifts for prayer shortly after the judge's decision.

Mrs Matthew's lawyer Stephen Hopper defended their actions saying: "They are obviously happy with the result and are expressing it in a way that is culturally appropriate to them."

Judge Jeffreys said yesterday that even if Mrs Matthews had made the complaint, he could not be sure she knew it was a "false" statement.

"I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she made the complaint," he said.

"Even if I was satisfied that she made the complaint, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was knowingly false."

Mrs Matthews made the claim in her court appearance last year, saying police could not prove it was her behind the burqa when the complaint was handed in to police. The local magistrate rejected it.

The case had lit up the religious debate when a magistrate found Mrs Matthews had deliberately made false complaints that Sergeant Paul Kearney was racist and had attempted to tear her burqa off her face when she declined to remove it on request.

She was pulled over for a random breath test last June, and accused Sgt Kearney of racism only after he booked her for failing to properly display her P-plates.

The incident was captured on a patrol car video camera and helped clear Sgt Kearney, prompting calls for all police cars to carry in-built cameras to avoid false claims.

"I've got my P-plates on my car ... there was nothing wrong with how they were displayed," Mrs Matthews says on the video.

"You look at me and see me wearing this and you couldn't handle it. All cops are racist."

She then threatens, "100 per cent", that she will take the matter to court and fight the charge.

France was the first country in Europe to implement a full ban on covering up faces in public.

France's burqa ban descended into farce when the first women to be summoned before a European court for illegally wearing the garments were refused entry, because they would not remove their face coverings."

Addendum Two 04/07/2011:

As predicted, Carnita Matthews' false assertion that Police officer had attempted to rip her niqab (face veil) away from her face, and the media circus that followed, has blown up in her (covered) face.

The State Cabinet has given Police new powers to remove face coverings of anyone suspected of committing a crime. "Suspected".

So the thing Carnita said happened but didn't, will now be happening all the time, because of her, and her own selfish, short-sighted motivations.

Story here:

ANYONE with a head covering - including burqas - suspected of committing a crime will be forced to show their face with police given new powers by the State Government.

Premier Barry O’Farrell announced this afternoon his Cabinet has approved the powers which will come into affect in the next few months.

Police will be given new powers to require motorists and others suspected of committing crimes to remove any head coverings so they can be identified.

Mr O’Farrell said there should be no discrimination – in favour or against any race – when it comes to helping police identify people suspected of criminal breaches.

“I don’t care whether a person is wearing a motor cycle helmet, a burqa, niqab, face veil or anything else – the police should be allowed to require those people to make their identification clear,” he said.

“I have every respect for various religions and beliefs but when it comes to enforcing the law the police should be given adequate powers to make a clear identification.”

Meanwhile, Attorney General Greg Smith said the Director of Public Prosecutions had provided advice that an appeal against the decision in the Carnita Matthews case was unlikely to succeed.

The Government will not lodge an appeal.

This is knifey, from 'the internet'.

Censorship @ news.com.au

I'm not sure why it is, but every time I post a comment on a story at news.com.au, it is never published. Ever.

And I'm not the only one.

I would love to get an insight into their acceptance criteria, especially as not one of my posts were offensive in any way. And I have seen posts critical of the site or the pieces author published in the past.

When you go through the comments section on a story (they're my favourite part!), the level of intelligence at times is highly questionable, and the spelling is beyond embarrassing. Almost as embarrassing as the spelling mistakes you see in a significant number of the articles themselves- there is no doubt proof-reading as an occupation no longer exists at news.com.au

And doesn't that really say something?
I can't get a comment through, but "Mrgaycunt lolcatsmagvin" can!

When the site you want to support doesn't even have the respect to communicate with you as an intelligent individual?

Are they actively trying to support the dumbing down of the population?

Or are they just lazy as hell?

I don't know the answers, but I do know I can't be bothered firing comments down a black hole, never to be published. Especially when Des and Shirleen from Murambibra can rant in almost unintelligible 'Strayan' about "what a pack of mongrels" the Government are, on a story regarding Muslim clerics pushing Shariah law in Western Sydney.

I'll just start commenting here, where they have less than no power to decide what I say. Suck it.

My other bone to pick with news.com.au, is that I hate it when their headlines are totally fallacious (this happens all the time).

Ie: The American man who "built a nuclear reactor in his house".

He didn't. He built a fusion reactor (totally different, and much safer) in a warehouse he rents (for such purposes).

Here's another one-

"Cameron called to Court to explain Avatar origins."

No, he wasn't! It's a Chinese court for a start, and James Cameron has gone on record saying he started work on Avatar 15 years ago, which predates the Chinese work by 10 years. So if anything, "Cameron countersues" would have been a bit closer to the truth.

I know I shouldn't be surprised, but I am. It's only out of pure boredom that I visit these news sites, and I'm always rewarded with fresh loads of...well...total untruth. And if they feel that I'm wrong, please attempt to sue me. That would be great. maybe you could subpoena James Cameron!

"HAYDA Bastani couldn't fiance Fadi Ibrahim in the face as she sat accused of plotting revenge murder."

Is that a sentence?

US President Barack's plan to redirect astronauts to inspect asteroids and eventually set foot on Mars is back on track.

President Barack? Are we on a first name basis now?

"aBut it seems the showbiz break-up of Kyle Sandilands and his much-younger bride Tamara Jaber has had the opposite effect..."

Need I say more?

"A rspokesman for the Palin family"

And again...

"This, even with the support of the judges who consistently give top marks to the Scarlett Belle band member."

Scarlett Belle is a duo, not a band. And they're barely a duo, having only one member that can actually sing well (and it isn't Jaber).

"JOBSEEKERS at a fast food restaurant were fleeced of up to $3500 each by the manager responsible for hiring them, police claimed yesterday."

JOB-SEEKERS at a fast food restaurant were fleeced of up to $3500 each by the manager responsible for hiring them, police claimed yesterday

I heard you the first time.

"BRITISH police have confirmed they shot at fugitive Raoul Moat with a Taser during an six-hour stand-off."

An six hour stand-off? Do you mean 'a' six hour stand-off? According to the particulars of that story, where Raoul Moat would kill a member of the public every time he read something inaccurate reported about him in the press, he might have been equally insulted by bad spelling and grammar!

And what about this story?

Most viewed story today, and yet it's more than a month old? I read it the first time it was 'printed', is it a slow news day or something? It must be- nothing that is actually happening is being reported on! So what? They just drag out old stories every now and then to fill in space? LAZY! AMATEUR!

"THE European spacecraft Rosetta performed a fly-by of a massive asteroid on Saturday"

Since when was being 3200 km away, a "fly-by"?

And I just adore the picture- of a satellite (not a spacecraft), orbiting Earth (with the Moon in the background (not an asteroid)), and suggesting that this asteroid was somehow close to Earth (it's actually near Jupiter), so you should go ahead and start to panic. That's a sensationalist picture, and doesn't reflect any of the factual matter contained in the story, apart from the fact it is a scene from Space. It's not even a photograph.

And after all the inaccuracies and mistakes news.com.au lets loose with on any given day, they actually scare quote this quote from Holger Sierks of Germany's Max Planck Institute, when he said "more than 400 "phantastic images'' showed many craters and details."

The guy's German. He can write phantastic if he wants, without some idiot excuse for an online newspaper scare quoting him over it. If they actually had a proof-reader over there, they might have even hit him with a (sp), just to distance themselves from that assault on the English language. Morons.

The most concerning aspect of news.com.au's behaviour, stems from this.

Try telling me that's not a hot topic! Even the Government is trying to do the right thing (in a very profit-motivated and twisted way), by making cigarettes just too expensive to buy. And Coles supermarkets, instead decide the best course of action (again, in a very profit-motivated and twisted way) is to make cigarettes available cheaply, thus circumventing the Governments efforts to (make more money from taxes) limit the supply.

The story invites readers to comment below it. I did (of course it wasn't published). But the interesting thing is- there are NO COMMENTS AT ALL.

As if!

Adelaide Now pulled the same trick with this article, making me wonder what the connections are behind the scenes?

Did Coles threaten to pull advertising on Rupert Murdoch-owned magazines (especially Master-Chef magazine) if comments were allowed? What's going on here? Because whether you smoke or not (and hopefully you don't), you're probably going to have a comment-worthy opinion to post in the comments section.

*Tumbleweed rolls by...*

So, as well as outright lying, putting spin on stories, and barely being able to construct a sentence, the 25 'journalists' who work for Rupert Murdoch's "News website of the Year", control the flow of information by shutting off comments for current stories.

My view is that the whole anti-Coles story was printed so Woolworths (which Murdoch has business/publishing partnerships with) could say for the record that they "would not follow the example of Coles", while avoiding a comments section that would pose the question- Why is Woolworth selling cigarettes to the public anyway? Aren't they "The fresh food people"? If they're so fresh and green, and healthy and family, why do they sell a product designed solely as a delivery device for an addictive and deadly cocktail of drugs and chemicals?

Food for thought, right there.

So while they can shut down the comments on that piece of pro-Woolworths (read: The Competition) spin, they can't stop me from writing about it here, in a different corner of the internet, safely out of their control.

Suck it, Murdoch.
There are other bare-faced examples of rampant bullshit, but I'm late for an appointment. Maybe I'll edit some more in later.


This is knifey, from 'the internet'.

Soda Kids Clothing, Melbourne.

This is a departure from my normal blog posts, but I feel it necessary to post this.

I was given a job by a childrens fashion company in Melbourne called 'Soda Kids'. I was fired with 2.5 hours notice, without being given a reason, or even being formally fired. I was told to finish that days work, then they would call me when they needed me back in. The call never came, and this was directly contra to our agreement.

Basically, they used me. I created a detailed warehouse plan for them, which they still have, and once I had finished what they wanted, they tossed me aside.

I was put in an extremely dangerous financial situation as a result of this, and decided to not take it lying down, which is why I am posting this.

I have included a message I sent to Daniela Bussolaro, one of the owners, about the situation.

I want people to know how some employers basically rape the work force, then discard them when they're no longer needed. Dishonest workplace practices, illegal working conditions, these are all things so many have to silently endure week in, week out.

Here is my message:
_________________________________________________

Hi Daniela, As you undoubtedly know, I was let go on Tuesday afternoon. My performance was not questioned, nor my punctuality. I was fired with 2.5 hours notice. But the interesting fact was, I wasn't even told I was being fired. I was told I'd be called today (Wednesday), and told when I would return to work. There was never any intention of bringing me back in. And the worst thing is, your business has done this to a person before.

Obviously this was highly distressing to me, as the arrangement Josie (your business partner and co-owner) and I had agreed upon stated I would be casual 5 days a week (at $100 per day), then hired officially on the 2nd of March as your new warehouse manager (at $750 per week after tax).

I had bowed out of all other job offers, and took my details off Seek.com, so I could follow through with my obligation to you. I had stayed up half the night on Wednesday to put together a draft warehouse plan for your business. I had agreed to work for you for $140 less than the lowest bracket of the going rate for someone of my experience/qualifications, in order to meet you halfway.

I worked hard, in a physical job in an unventilated, hot room, that is a violation of Australian OHS requirements by as much as 6 degrees on some days (The Australian Standard AS 1837 – 1976 Code of Practice for Application of Ergonomics to Factory and Office Work). In that kind of heat you are required to give us a 15 minute break every hour, but I said nothing, put my head down, and worked hard for you!

Worst of all, I had to endure the insult of having to work under Michael- a storeman so ineffective, slow, belligerent, and incompetent, that it defies logic why you would allow yourselves to be weighed down like that. Of course I know why- he's cheap. Now, I have $200 to my name, my rent is due at the end of the week, and I have no way to pay it. This is because I was screwed, by your business, and therefore, by you.

Unfortunately, I have been in this position before (I'm far too trusting, people seem to enjoy taking advantage of my good nature). This time however, I have decided to take every legal avenue available to me to inconvenience you in return. I know you just needed someone to get this last order out on time (I could have done everything Michael and I did in a week, in 2 days maximum, had you allowed me to work by myself, and without Michaels constant interruption and disruption). Now the order is done, no more use for me.

I would have been happy to work as a casual for you and leave, but Josie seems to enjoy stringing good, hard working, honest, and efficient people along; then dumping them in the financial crap when she is ready. Just so you know I left $25 with Laura on my way out, as I finished 2.5 hours earlier than I had been paid to stay. That's called honour.

So here's what will happen: I will submit you to be listed on the unethical businesses database, which as the name suggests, lists businesses within Australia who act in an unethical or dishonest manner to their staff, their customers, or the environment. Every time someone enters your name, Josie's name, Sissi G, or Soda Kids, one of the first entries they will see through their search engine enquiry is your listing on this site.

I have downloaded the links to all 155 of your current friends on facebook. I will contact all of them, and describe the facts of how you allowed me to be taken advantage of, and the situation of hardship it has left me in. Maybe they won't care, maybe they will. Time will tell. I will also circulate the list among my own contacts, many of whom are exactly the kind of people you want on your side.

I have the details of every retailer that currently stocks Sissi G and Soda Kids. I will contact them with the same message. Because we both know in business, people don't care for what goes on as long as the money keeps flowing, I will include the fact in my message that if they do not contact me with confirmation that they will no longer order from you, they too will be listed on the unethical business database. As much as businesses don't care, an increasing number of consumers do, and that sways the opinion of businesses strongly. It will be easier for them to no longer stock you, than deal with the potential fallout of being associated with a business that screws its own workers over.

I have contacted the labour department, and filled them in on conditions in the storeroom. Unless you manage to install air conditioning in there before the inspectors come, you could be fined, or in an extreme case (like this one), shut down entirely until compliance has been achieved, checked, and verified. Don't forget to allow time for bureaucratic paper shuffling.

There are of course more options open to me, and I will evaluate them on their merits in good time.I just wanted to communicate with you, and to let you know that you had a strong and efficient asset in me. Instead of just being human, and considering how your businesses actions would affect another person (who was helping you!), you wasted my time and talent, and fired me with no regard for my welfare.

There is every possibilty you had no knowledge of any of this, and if that is the case, then I am very sorry. I am very sorry, because now Josie will have to explain to you why your business is receiving such a great deal of negative publicity, through no fault of your own. No amount of money could ever change my mind, because my one goal is to legally inconvenience your business as much as your business has inconvenienced me. I am even prepared to spend my own money (when I get back on my feet) in this endeavour. In doing so, hopefully the next time you take on someone new, you will show them the respect of not lying to them, not offering them a job that isn't there, making them work in illegal conditions, firing them without having the decency or respect to actually fire them, and if you do, give them reasonable notice.

I knew Josie was a snake- I could feel it all along. But I never saw you that way, and considering Daphne's endorsement of you, I felt you could be trusted. I am so unhappy to have been proven wrong in that regard.

_________________________________________________________________
This is knifey, from 'the internet.



http://www.sodakids.com.au/sodakids/

Australia is a racist country, Vs. Indians deserve to be bashed.

I haven't written one of these in a while.

"One of these", being an opinion blog, based solely on my experience and thoughts on a current event.

Typically, these blogs incur the wrath of a lot of people, my readership goes down, things like that. That's ok...I generally don't live by what others think, so it's pretty much like losing hairs off my head.

So here's the synopsis:

Indians are being assaulted in Australia.

Indians are increasingly upset about this.

The view from India regarding Australia is that Australia is "a racist country". They have issued official Government travel advisories, warning Indian nationals of the dangers of being Indian in Australia.

OK, hold up a second. Australia may, or may not be, a racist country. It wouldn't surprise me if there were more racists/xenophobes here than any other country on earth. It wouldn't surprise me if there weren't, also.

What surprises me here, is that, when you want sympathy for your cause (that cause being awareness by a country of your position on a current event), don't insult the country. It makes people not like you, and you lose in the eyes of the media, which is how the majority of people in this country see and comprehend what goes on around them.

Also, make sure you're perfect, before shouting about the imperfections of the country you're visiting.

India has twice the murder rate per capita than Australia does. So fuck up.

In India, women are killed in the name of honour all the time. So fuck up.

In India, white people are victims of violent crime too. So...fuck up.

Here's what I see:

Indian people I experience in Melbourne in the main have been arrogant, rude, and in some cases, aggressive. I have also met some wonderful Indian people here (and overseas), and they were all loveable in the extreme, and well worth respecting. But sadly, they are in a very tiny minority of my experience.

There is something about the way Indians in general communicate that is incredibly rude and disrespectful. Is it a holdover of the caste system,? Do they see us as inferior because we're not dressed formally,? Is the Indian 'tone' easily mistaken as rude when in fact they are merely inquisitive and opinionated? No idea.

Do they deserve to be bashed for it? Hell no.

Don't think I'm nationalistic. I'm not. nationalism is societally endorsed retardation.

Don't think I care how the rest of the world sees Australia. I don't. Australia is a bit of a joke overseas. Laid back people with stupid slang and accents wrestling crocs or sunning themselves on the Gold Coast. Whatever. the reality of Chapel Street, Prahran, or Mooloolabah beach in Queensland on a Friday night is far more embarrassing.

So say what you like.

But when I see Indians beating their own female cousins on the street because they dated someone the males didn't approve of, don't sook when your people get bashed here.

When I see Indian taxi drivers fighting each other and sometimes others in public, don't sook when your people get bashed here.

If you show people you're into scrapping, don't sook when people get confused and think you're all like that.

Have a look at yourselves, and how you (generally don't) integrate here, and stop wondering why traditional Anglo Australians (read: bogans) would want to have a go at you.

Is it racial? No. Anyone who is rude/arrogant and beats their sisters in public would get the same treatment.

Is that right? No! But it is Australian. Does that make us racists? Again, no. There are so many people here who marched with you, who suppport you, and who would want to help you. So when you stereotype all of us, you include them.

And for my part, the next time an Indian taxi driver attempts to kidnap and rape one of my female friends, I won't label you all rapists.

The Government of Australia is dreaming if it thinks that these attacks aren't racially motivated. the police know why this is happening, they're just not telling Joe Public. The reason is, is because there is a small group of people who live here, that are ignorant of India's incredibly rich history, cultural diversity, insane work ethic, and everything else that makes India an incredible place full of amazing people, these people, want to travel in the city and not be the only white face on the tram. They are sick of International students and taxi drivers and anyone else they don't understand. And they know that if they bash enough of them, they'll simply stop coming. And this has started to happen.

The number of international students coming to Australia from India has halved for the next year. The plan is working. The racists are winning. And you're all falling for it.

The only reason they haven't done the same thing with Asians is because Asians have killed each other with samurai swords outside nightclubs, and may or may not know martial arts. Bogans ain't fucking with that.

So if you're in India, and you're thinking of cancelling your plans to move here, that's fine with me.

And if you're in India, and you want to come here, that's fine too.

Just know, that people in Australia get bashed occasionally. And if you come here, it might be you, just like it might be me (Dutch), or my friend Moses (Syrian). That's the Australia you don't see in the Qantas ads.


This is knifey, from 'the internet'.