‘There’s not a good enough reason for Adelaide to be there,’ quipped ALP grandee Graham Richardson on Sky TV, inadvertently reminding viewers about what’s wrong with Labor.
This once great party has abandoned its raison d’être, the working class including South Australians, to represent city elites tempted by the ‘Greens’, the millionaire thugs who run law-breaking mega-unions and foreign communist oligarchs. This change came with the entrenchment of the age of religious disbelief with Labor endorsing all manner of fashionable ideas.
An early example was the Whitlam government’s surprise endorsement of free trade so fulsomely that almost alone among governments they unilaterally abandoned protection, an essentially naive approach soon endorsed by Australia’s political and media establishment.
A commonsense approach would have been to do this only in return for reciprocity in both free and fair trade, as Donald Trump does. Little surprise then that our free trade agreements usually operate to the advantage of our no doubt bemused trading partners.
It is now guaranteed that the more an imported idea, such as gender fluidity, is contrary to commonsense, the national interest or both, the more likely it is that Labor will adopt it with the LINOs (Liberals In Name Only) soon rushing to emulate them. The current leading example is the increasingly discredited theory that man-made carbon dioxide (Orwellian Newspeak: ‘carbon’) emissions are the direct cause of dangerous global warming (Newspeak: ‘climate change’). Blind adherence to this by the politicians — all the while hypocritically exempting their massive personal CO2 footprints — will destroy much of our industry and agriculture and impoverish the nation.
To support this myth, we’re told this summer was our hottest. But this is based on ‘homogenisation’, Newspeak for the deliberate alteration of past readings. Then we’re told something even the IPCC doesn’t dare claim, that man-made global warming is the reason for our current droughts and floods, in Newspeak, ‘extreme weather events’.
The UN climate boss, Christiana Figueres, let slip the real reason for this hoax when she said the Chinese communist regime provided the best model for fighting global warming, the last thing they’re interested in doing. The real goal, she admitted, is the destruction of the free enterprise system, which is essential to Western democracy.
Well before the global warming myth was invented, the Hawke government abandoned old Labor’s support for drought-proofing the country and thereby mitigating flooding.
And another obsession which would have Labor pioneers turning over in their graves is the way modern Labor wraps itself in the culture of death and is now encouraging even more abortions. They are sure to follow the American Democrats who recently celebrated the legalisation of post-abortion infanticide with an extraordinary standing ovation in the New York Senate.
As with the US Democrats, Labor is also determined to open the borders to illegal immigrants, demonstrated by the recent Phelps-Shorten Medivac Act.
The only solution to these follies is, as I have previously argued, to make the politicians truly accountable by constitutional reform. This will only occur when the people realise this and demand it.
When I was a boy, children were warned not to speak to ‘strange men’. No doubt they still are.Just as the police in those days rarely knew where SP bookmakers, casinos and brothels were operating, so there seemed to be a toleration of paedophiles except the most notorious and violent.
We schoolboys were unaware of any paedophile teachers or clergy, while our Catholic friends’ only complaint about the Brothers concerned the degree of corporal punishment. But we were endowed with more common sense about paedophiles than the Catholic hierarchy. We knew instinctively that paedophiles, whether gropers or groomers, are insatiable and incurable.
As to the Royal Commission into historical institutional abuse, this soon turned into a Royal Commission into the Catholic Church. The background suggestion is that celibacy was the cause, but since paedophilia is found among married clergy, as with all other occupations, this seems unlikely. What was surprising was that the Commissioner didn’t seek to have his terms of reference extended to areas where paedophilia is prevalent today. These would include certain notorious remote indigenous communities as well as situations where a single mother has an endless succession of male lovers.
Despite the hysteria, doubting the correctness of the verdict against Cardinal Pell is neither a criticism of the jury nor a lack of confidence in the jury system.
Jurors, acting properly, must base their verdict only on the limited evidence that was allowed to be put before them. Given the law relating to the admission of evidence is highly technical, appeals are hardly unusual.
This particular jury did not observe Cardinal Pell arraigned, that is, plead not guilty, surely a striking and crucial moment in any trial. They did not observe the former choir boy in the box giving evidence or being cross-examined; they were merely shown a video from the previous trial. Nor were they allowed to view a factual video showing the interior of the Cathedral and, even for Catholics, the complicated ritual surrounding a Pontifical High Mass.
This would have demonstrated that it would have been impossible — I stress impossible — for the Cardinal to have committed the offence without drawing the attention of the clergy, congregation and choir to the fact that something highly unusual, interrupting the order of the day, was occurring in the open sacristy. Wearing at least a long alb, without a frontal opening, tied with a knotted and doubled cincture or rope, under a stole and a heavily embroidered chasuble, with a mitre, pectoral cross, episcopal ring and large staff, the Cardinal would have needed assistance and some time to disrobe to commit the offence as described.
The verdict is unsafe. And while not a matter for the appeal, every Australian should be extremely uneasy about the fact that the Victorian police began the investigation without a complaint.
‘Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime,’ Lavrentiy Beria assured Stalin.
Is that what we have come to?
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.
You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10