The Australian - Wrong. Part 2,890,9990

The Australian published a quite amazing editorial yesterday regarding the federal government's decision to strike down a law in ACT that would have allowed same sex civil partnerships. I'll dissect it bit by bit (called fisking in the blogosphere I believe)...

'Howard's helper
Australia's tolerant society does not need gay marriage'

--> Excellent subheading there. Just like starting off a rant by saying 'I'm not racist BUT....'

'IN seeking to push through laws to allow gay couples to marry in all but name, ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope has handed John Howard a wedge issue that will bolster the Prime Minister's credentials with middle Australia.'

--> So John Howard is going to use this wedge issue to his advantage right?

'Few societies are as tolerant as this one when it comes to its citizens' private lives.'

--> What a society that prevents it's citizens entering into gay marriages in overseas countries? What could be more tolerant than that?

'Several states allow same-sex couples to adopt children, and Australians are relaxed about homosexuality.'

--> What even Mr Howard? Or the 36% of Australians who think homosexuality is 'immoral'?

'But while they support extending to gay couples the same property and inheritance rights that their married peers enjoy, most Australians draw the line at sanctifying gay relationships with the institution of wedlock.'

--> Do they? Who asked them? Is the Australian with a circulation of 140,000 representative of the Australian people?

'Recognising this political reality, Mr Howard and Attorney-General Philip Ruddock announced on Tuesday that the commonwealth would intervene to veto the ACT's Civil Unions Act, passed in amended form last month.'

--> Bravo for Mr Howard! Win some bigot votes at the cost of dignity for gay people in Australia.

'The changes, which Mr Ruddock sought earlier this year, did not go far enough to alleviate Howard cabinet concerns that, under the law, gay civil unions and marriage would be the same.'

--> How dare gay people demand equal rights! Was John afraid that his marrage to Janet would collapse under the pressure of all those queers tying the knot? What a insecure man. Small man's syndrome surely.

'The commonwealth last intervened in territory law in 1997 when it scuppered the Northern Territory's euthanasia legislation. Two years ago, the federal Government won bipartisan backing when it sought to clarify that marriage was a union between a man and a woman.'

--> This is true and Labor should be ashamed for it's support in this.

'Mr Stanhope may have thought he was playing clever politics with his elite Canberra constituency when he determined to thumb his nose at this national consensus against gay marriage.'

--> What clever politics? Was he doing it deliberately so he received a landslide of queer votes in Canberra? Do that many gay people even live there? What about Howard's thumbing of his nose about Iraq, IR laws, the sale of Telstra - all reforms opposed by the majority of Australians? Ah, of course he was showing leadership! Mr Stanhope is playing clever politics. I see.

Instead, his grandstanding on same-sex unions has backfired badly and against the interests of homosexual couples.

--> Hang on. So he tried to reduce discrimination against gay people but this was somehow against their interests. What???

At the same time, he has helped boost Mr Howard's moral authority where it counts– with swinging voters.

--> Does someone gain moral authority by being discriminatory? It's Mr Stanhope who has the moral authority here. Not Little Johnny Cunt.

If Mr Stanhope wants to support the gay community, he should turn his attention to practical issues, such as winning federal agreement to overturn laws that still discriminate against gay relationships, including the Medicare safety net, public sector superannuation, veterans' entitlements and judicial pensions. Same-sex couples should not let their private lives be manipulated for political advantage

--> Possibly the most laughable paragraph I've ever seen uttered in an editoral. First of all the Australian discusses how Howard will benefit politically from this and then it accuses Stanhope of using the issue for his advantage. Well either it's one or the other? What political 'advantage' has Mr Stanhope gained from this? If he was acting against the interests of 'middle Australia' as they claim then surely there would have been a disadvantage in him pursuing it? But the Australia seems to be dazzled by Howard's use of this issue as a wedge issue.

Do you know not once are the views of gay people taken into account in this piece. Not once. They are irrelevant of course, their views don't count in all of this. What matters is that 'Middle Australians' (i.e the bigots in the Liberal Party) are happy. That's all that ever matters and if you don't like it you can fuck off.

The government AND The Australian should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

A sane voice in a ridiculous world

I often feel like a nodding dog when I read Polly Toynbee's op ed pieces for The Guardian and today is no different.

She speaks excellent sense regarding how to prevent crime occuring in the UK.

Bravo!

World Cup Fever

So, it is almost upon us! Hurrah for the World Cup starting. I'm quite surprised by the amount of hype there is in Australia regarding this but I also recognise that as soon as Australia get knocked out the residents of Melbourne will once again think that the clash between Essendon and Collingwood is the best sporting event in the world EVER!

So here are my predictions!

Winner: England. This is the first time I've ever predicted a win for England but I just have a gut feeling that this will be our year.
Beaten Finalist: Germany. Well it just has to be doesn't it?
Biggest flop: Italy. I predict they will go out in the group stage.
Overachievers: Australia - I reckon with Guus in charge they could make the Quarter Finals.

So here's to four weeks of staying up till 2am, getting up at 5am and desperately trying to contain my optimism regarding England's chances.

I just have one request for the Aussies out there: please stop calling it 'soccer' just for these four weeks? Please? You'd make me a very happy man.

Clarkson

Glad I am not the only person who thinks that Jeremy Clarkson is an utter cunt.

Paris Sings!

Here it is Ladies and Gentlemen!

Paris' first single.

Enjoy.


Hat tip: Popbitch

Reasons to despair

Lots of bad news floating around today.

Firstly, the UK government is set to introduce stricter drug laws. Madness.

Secondly, the Australian government has decided to prevent gay people in the ACT having the same legal rights as hetrosexual people. Nice. Once again Conservatives portray the right of gay people to join in union as a threat against the institution of marriage. It's a load of bollocks. End of.

I'd like them to do a survey of the millions of people who are married in this country and ask them if they feel that their marriage will be threatened by Adam & Steve being able to join in a civil partnership. I reckon the results would speak for themselves. I just cannot understand how allowing same sex people to have civil partnerships will threaten marriage? If someone does understand can they please explain it to me? Of course the easiest explanation is that this push for civil unions is being stopped simply because Howard and Ruddock are disgusting, bigotted, fuckwitted, homophobic cunts. But nah, that can't possibly be the case eh?

Barry Manilow or Being Mugged?

The Guardian reports that a council in Australia is piping out Barry Manilow music throughout a carpark in order to disperse the hoons that hang around there revving up their cars and listening to their 'doof doof' music. A local councillor said:

"Based on reports ... daggy [uncool] music is one way to make the hoons leave an area because they can't stand the music," Mr Saravinovski said. "We're hoping it works. These people don't show any respect for the law.

I think it's an excellent idea although not sure how it would work in say the UK where there seem to be dodgy gangs of youths hanging around on every street corner. Everyone would be barraged with a stream of Celine Dion, Aqua, Status Quo and Westlife. I think I'd rather have violent street crime to be honest.

Families bloody Families

Jason Koutsoukis writes a brilliant piece in yesterday's Sunday Age about the government's obssession with families and how all their policies are aimed at them. Rather than giving them money hand over fist to fund their lifestyles would it not be a more productive use of tax money to spend it on the country's education system? That would benefit the children of all families and would produce a smarter country as well. At the moment $3000 is given to parents, irrespective of income, who have children but they can spend it on what they like - put it towards a new SUV perhaps? Install air conditioning? Buy a new BBQ? Would it not be a much smarter use of this money to put it into an area, that more than any other, will help children (and the country) in the future?

All the current policy is about is bribing voters under the guise of 'promoting hard working families'. Australia is booming off the back of high commodity prices but no money is being spent on investing in the future of this country - when the resources run out we'll see what a 'lucky country' it is then.

Class War

An excellent column from Roy Hattersley regarding John Prescott's troubles of late....

Threat to Marriage?

The Law Commission in the UK is proposing that non married couples get the same legal rights as those couples who are married. Predictably this has led to Conservative fury that this threatens the very basis of marriage - it does no such thing. Marriage is a venerable instituion that has been around for many hundreds of years and I see nothing in these proposals that threaten it. I think Stuart Jeffries in the Guardian is bang on the money regarding this. Just because couple X now have rights it doesn't mean my marriage to my wife is any less special nor does it mean that it has less status in society. I don't know what Rightwing types think my reaction should be? Should I look at couple X and think 'Fuck, now that their relationship is now recognised by law I wish I'd never got bloody married. All that money. The family dramas. The bad music at the wedding reception. All in bloody vain. What was the point!' I suggest that if I did feel that then I probably shouldn't have got married in the first place.

Who are these people anyway who marry for legal reasons? I married my wife because I am deeply in love with her and wanted to spend the rest of my life with her. Other people may not choose to get married but have the same feelings towards their partners. People express themselves in different ways. Viewing marriage in a purely legalistic, technocratic, moralistic manner distorts the picture in my opinion. The potential legal rights we could enjoy as a married couple did not enter my head when I, very romantically, proposed to my wife in Pizza Express. Marriage is a wonderful thing but so is a defacto relationship that has lasted the distance. If you view marriage purely as a means to an end to gain rights in society, then yes the marriage rate may fall. However, I am not sure that many people get married for that reason. It's pretty impossible to explain why people marry, maybe it's because it's the 'done thing' but more importantly it's a deeply emotional decision and one that isn't going to be effected by John and Simone down the road, in a defacto relationship, being given legal recognition.

More fuckwits.

When fundamentalists collide the world suffers...The Christian Right in the US bangs on about the war on terror but they actually share many of the opinions that Islamic fundies hold - anti gay, anti sex, anti pornography, anti non believers etc. They are two sides of the same coin. The difference is that one side has the leader of the mightiest, most deadly country in the world by the short and curlies and the other side doesn't.

Gretel V Michael

Car crash TV at it's finest...



Although I have to say that Michael does have a point. When Big Brother showed the clip of him and David for the first time, it was edited so that it looked as if they were kissing each other.

Crouch does the robot dance

No doubt during the World Cup we'll be laughing in horror as Peter Crouch falls over, shins shots woefully wide and generally embarrasses us all. But for now, it appears he's the man of the moment. He scored a great goal against Hungary on Tuesday night and celebrated in a highly original way! See him move below and then read what The Guardian has to say about it...

Prudish Paris

Paris, who became uberfamous due to a film of her sucking cock and swallowing love muck, is getting all prudish about her new film! Bless.

Give him a job!

This is a brilliant website.

Go visit!

Go Julia!

Ha ha - doubt it will do her chances of getting the leadership of the ALP any good, but I admire Gillard's sentiment in the insult she threw Tony Abbot's way in parliament. I particuarly like the way she refused to apologise, stating:

"If I have offended grubs I withdraw unconditionally."

Not big, not clever. But at least someone isn't afraid to let Father Abbott what an utter cunt he is. Bravo Julia!

Michael spits the dummy

Michael from Big Brother is spitting the dummy about his on air spat with host, Gretel Kileen on last night's show. As usual he attacks everyone around him rather than looks at the real source of the problem, himself. What a cunt he is. Was great television though - car crash TV at it's best!

Blair gets it wrong - Again

Tim Blair shouts his mouth off again about what he thinks progressive people may or may not think. Believe me Tim, I am as furious about this as I would be if it concerned a Christian school. True progressive people are against all forms of fundamentalism, Islamic, Christian or otherwise. And all progressives should be against faith schools...

Starburst Ad

Saw this ad last night for the first time. Brilliant!

Give them Crack

Rachel Campbell Johnson in The Times suggests that the best way to deal with hard drug use (although she does lump all drugs together in her article) is to give free crack and heroin away to addicts. The reason for this?

'.... to supply the addict with drugs is to force the endgame. You can'’t maunder on for decades with heroin or crack cocaine. You go down fast. You either die of an overdose. or you are brought to your knees. And it is only from your knees that you can beg for help.'

It's an interesting theory. Is someone dying due to obesity? Give them free cream cakes and Big Macs. You've got liver disease from decades of alcoholism? Well here's a bottle of vodka for niche! Enjoy. That'll sort you out. Have you got a smoker's cough? Well here's a years supply of Gitanes, hopefully you'll have cancer in no time!

Her bonkers plan seems to be to make people so ill that they are then forced to seek help from the state to kick their addiction. Ever heard of the phrase 'Prevention is better than cure' Rachel?

Look, I am an advocate of drug legalisation but I don't think that actually giving drugs away free willy nilly will actually help things. The thing with hard drugs like Heroin and Crack Cocaine is that the users usually do not know when to stop so I'd be guessing there would be far more overdoses than cries for help and I'm not sure that having a cull of drug users is either wise or ethical!