When is censorship justified? When is censorship not justified?

Pornography:

Censoring some pornography is justified, though we do need some common sense.  Of course anything that shows children being molested, cruelty to animals, or anything that shows coercion being used, should not be shown.

On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with showing the naked body, and I see nothing wrong with showing mutual, loving sex.  With some films, it is an intrinsic part of the story.

And the nude body?  A normal part of art classes, though some of the bodies drawn in art classes are not exactly designed to titillate.

Incitement to violence:

Now that is one thing that should be censored.  But the censors must realize they should not be too broad in their definitions.  Criticism of the behaviour of a group of people is not the same as telling others to attack them.  And when someone is only speaking facts, now that should never be censored.  How can a problem ever be tackled when no-one is willing to talk about it?

Drunkenness, crime, violence and child rape in remote Aboriginal communities is one such problem.  It is a terrible problem. Far too many Aboriginal kids commit suicide.  A great deal of money is spent trying to tackle it, but nearly always, it misses the mark.  How can money be well spent when no-one dares say what is happening?  If a person does dare, then they are accused of 'racism.'

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is a lady unafraid to speak about it.  She is hoping for election to parliament in May (2019)  and might then have a little more power to do something about it.  Being Aboriginal herself, is some protection against the far-too-effective insult of 'racist.'   But all the same, Price is very unpopular in certain quarters.  She has had death threats.


'Hate speech.' 

A dictionary definition: (Merriam-Webster dictionary)
Legal Definition of hate speech : speech that is intended to insult, offend, or intimidate a person because of some trait (as race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or disability)

In many countries, there are penalties in law for 'hate speech.'  The problem is that people are defining hate speech more and more loosely until real problems cannot be spoken of, because someone else will call it 'racism' or 'hate speech.'

But speaking fact is never hate speech.

And there should be NO censoring of opinion simply because the authorities (or the censor) disagrees with what the person says, or does not like the facts that he airs.

Several commentators are facing censorship.

Alex Jones is one who has been removed from social media. His 'Infowars' has been wiped from social media platforms. I found him interesting for a while, for his conspiracy theories, some of them quite absurd, others I judged as possible.

 But maybe one of his theories had too much truth for someone's liking, and he has lost his platform.

Another is 'Proud Boys.' I have never seen anything about this group, so looked them up. They say about themselves, "The Proud Boys confuse the media because the group is anti-SJW without being alt-right. "Western chauvinist" includes all races, religions, and sexual preferences." 
(SJW means 'social justice warrior.') 

On the other hand, Wikipedia says they are "a far-right neo-fascist organization that admits only men as members and promotes political violence. It is based in the United States and has a presence in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom." 

But I take that with a grain of salt, as the media has a record of calling anyone 'far right' who are not deeply Leftist.

Milo Yiannopoulos

Milo Yiannopoulos has been banned from some platforms, and he was not allowed a visa for a planned speaking tour of Australia. (April, 2019)
 He wrote a book, had a publisher, but the publisher decided to drop him, so he had to self publish.

Some commentators have been 'shadow-banned,' which means that their posts reach only a small audience. It is underhanded, as the commentator does not know he is being censored.

Even ordinary people, like myself, run the risk of being accused of 'violating the standards' of facebook if we dare to talk of unpopular subjects.  With the increasing censorship, facebook is already becoming less relevant.  It may soon go the way of 'Myspace.'   But right now, because so many people use it, one can still learn things that are happening across the world, things that print and TV media will consider either not newsworthy, or the 'wrong' message.  

Censorship by 'shouting down.'

It has become a standard tactic now to 'shout down' speakers whose views other people do not wish to hear.

Bettina Arndt was shouted down when she tried to demonstrate that the story of a 'rape culture' in colleges was actually nonsense.






Censorship by the threat of job loss:

A basic teaching of Christianity is that good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell. Also that if one accepts Jesus Christ as your saviour, and you 'repent,' then you are saved from hell.

Israel Folau is a Rugby player, but also, he is one of those Christians who firmly believes in this teaching, would prefer that others not go to hell, so he tells them to look to Jesus.

So he posts a meme on Twitter:

"WARNING Drunks Homosexuals Adulterers Liars Fornicators Thieves Atheists Idolaters, HELL AWAITS YOU. REPENT! ONLY JESUS SAVES." 

In other words, he repeats Christian teaching.
For that, his sporting contract, supposed to be worth $4 million, has been terminated, though he does have one more day to appeal the decision, (as at 17/4/19.)   Maybe he will sue - discriminination on the basis of religion.) 


Dr. Peter Ridd called for better quality control of science reports. He said that 'peer-reviewed' papers are not necessarily any more than friends approving what friends say. This man is a scientist and it is his own area of expertise. He lost his job.
(https://davepellowe.com/dr-peter-ridd-on-academic-freedom-the-great-barrier-reef/)

He took it to court, and on the 16th April, 2019: a court ruled that his loss of job was 'unlawful.' But I cannot imagine that he will be very comfortable in that work environment (James Cook University) if he goes back.

Climate Scientists are at real risk of losing their jobs if they don't play along with their colleagues in the 97% Consensus pretence.

Censorship by the threat of legal action:

The notorious 18c  is still in force in Australia.

Explanation:  Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, deals with offensive behaviour "because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin" in Australia. It is a section of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

This awful law provides for the punishment of anyone who 'offends' someone else, and whether it is 'offence' rests with the accuser.  It has been used to severely punish those accused. Even if the accused person is eventually cleared, it is liable they have been broken financially and emotionally.  It is a very effective punishment, whether or not there is any actual crime.

Other countries now punish blasphemy, usually using the laws against what they call 'hate speech.' (http://prophecynewswatch.com/article.cfm?recent_news_id=2677

Australia may do that as well, quite soon.  Labor speaks of adding 'religion' to the Racial Vilification laws.

And one dare not question whether a man is a woman merely because he takes hormones and declares he is a woman. In Canada,  a chap called Bill Whatcott, was fined $55,000 for just that.

 (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/court-orders-christian-to-pay-55000-to-trans-politician-for-calling-him-biological-male) 

Censorship by exclusion: 

Germaine Greer

This one is most noticeable when a speaker is 'disinvited'  as Germaine Greer was disinvited from a Festival of Writers. That was a couple of years ago.

More recently, comedian Barry Humphies was disinvited from a Comedy Festival, and the 'Barry Award' named after him, discontinued.

Bjorn Lomborg is a scientist who has run afoul of conventional climate theory, not by disputing it, but merely by saying that we need to look at better ways of treating the threat than by wrecking the economy.  He has lost speaking engagements and has been excluded from discussion.

Many more, of course, are not invited to events in the first place.  When a person is excluded and ignored if they dare to mention unpopular views, in whatever context, most will simply keep quiet.  Maybe it is part of the reason that some elections have had unexpected results in past years, like Brexit and like the election of Donald Trump to the American Presidency. People may have learned to keep their mouths shut,  but they can still vote the way they choose.  (Long live the Secret Ballot.)  


One man who has been 'unpersoned' for speaking unpalatable facts is Tommy Robinson. 

Even to say his name is liable to evoke a bitter, spitting hatred from those who oppose him.  The authorities are trying very hard to silence him, and he has been removed from facebook, from Instagram, from Twitter, and from You-tube.  The videos he has made are disappearing, which is why I have included links to several here.  (They may have gone before you try and find them, of course.)

One of the earliest of his videos that I saw (now gone from my facebook page) is a lengthy one he made relatively early in his career.  It was the video of a speech he made, and it was about an hour long.  In it, he spoke of the way his London suburb of Luton had been harmed by the influx of Muslim immigrants, though not by earlier immigrants of various races and nationalities.  He speaks of some of the original residents being intimidated into leaving, so the area became more and more filled with Muslim immigrants.  He speaks of a Veterans' March being harassed by Muslims, and the way that Jihadis were recruited in his own neighbourhood.

He speaks of Muslim 'grooming gangs'  using non-Muslim girls for sex.  He told of  two fathers trying to get the police to rescue their daughters from the flat where they were being abused.  One of the girls was just eleven.  But instead of doing anything to rescue the girls, the fathers were threatened with being in 'breach of the peace' or some such thing. That was years before the problem of grooming gangs was acknowledged and some of the culprits finally brought to justice.


It includes a short video of a march of a large number of Muslims chanting 'UK, go to Hell,' and 'British Police, burn in Hell.' And yet,  it is Robinson who is harassed by the police and by the British Establishment.

This is that video: I suggest you watch and listen while you can.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YQ94jFg_4A

That he criticized the police and that he speaks of the protection that these gangs had, has probably contributed to the way that the police and others in authority have tried to bully him into silence.


Robinson is speaking from experience.  He is speaking of what he has seen and heard. He saw those recruiting for Islamic Jihad. A portion is shown on his video.

 He speaks of a Muslim terrorist who blew himself up - 'He lived three doors down from my auntie.'  He speaks of a girl who went to school with him.  'Now she wears a burqa.'

Robinson has, indeed, broken the law on occasion. He is not a saint. But I think he might be a bit of a hero.  So few have dared to speak of the problems that large-scale immigration brings with it, especially when there is such a large cohort of immigrants that stick together, and do not adhere to the norms usually regarded as civilized behaviour.

He is, in no way, a racist. Colour and race is not an issue for him.  What he is definite about is that those who live in Britain should adhere to its laws.

He says: "THE LENGTH IN WHICH THE ESTABLISHMENT ARE GOING TO TRY AND COMPLETELY SILENCE ME IS BOTH PHENOMENAL AND SCARY, NOT JUST FOR ME BUT FOR THE NATION AS A WHOLE. THIS IS NOT JUST AN ATTACK ON ME, THIS IS A TACTFUL ATTEMPT AT SILENCING THE HUGE MAJORITY OF THOSE WHOSE VOICES I REPRESENT."


His final removal from You-Tube as well as all of the others might have been prompted by the video he called ‘Panodrama.’ It was an expose of how the BBC had tried to undermine him - 'Tommy Takedown' was its working title.  It is all on tape.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnBRlL6_Eg0&fbclid=IwAR0wztiKl7Tv4s34vw7OSsI03dobi220hJDNhdhIW0nSzmvlzhSPZRPQsZw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dU7uSABbaM&fbclid=IwAR1sIuJfAOBnrfxDha0loIebDMKsC6Wm0QY2xan5RZZXumo9bRQ3-Qkq75Y ‘Panodrama’

I had a link to the original video, but that has gone from my f/b page. Maybe the above videos are still around because they only show the video on a large screen and the crowd watching closely. Robinson has a very large number of supporters.

Other videos I had on my facebook page have also been removed. It is why I have made this blog post. People should not be silenced when all they do is expose the facts. It is criminal what they have done to silence and to punish this man.

Tommy Robinson has been 'depersoned' as much as the authorities have been able. He has been imprisoned on feeble grounds. His family's address has been publicized, in spite of the full knowledge that it would put them in danger.   One day, he may very probably be killed by Muslim criminals, maybe in a prison when he next 'breaches the peace.'


He says that most people judge on headlines, and he asks that people look further, beyond the headlines.

Some of his videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnBRlL6_Eg0&fbclid=IwAR2Zg62yFlVG35GZCydajWUl_EaC6A5BOtHq7ieOTlQBXyNTeo-Ot93ktqY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dU7uSABbaM&fbclid=IwAR1n2MEx-0xN-5O8YgjIT_QLr8K5u8egzs158OSw-wYA6it7YQU6lZ5DJRo

https://www.tr.news/over-5000-join-tommy-robinson-on-telegram-overnight/?fbclid=IwAR0GQwlY8kjS8WEeykvu0gynimhukRiAXaSGDDo8GaZIBIzStxR9uS5vUEM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnBRlL6_Eg0&fbclid=IwAR3ItwafERN3korEvOj-fphzIsBAAtc3fs23TJ7cqXCsqOb5Z-oBLGgMmAg

https://www.facebook.com/johan.vrie.39/videos/412190799599006/UzpfSTYzMTk4NjE4NjpWSzoyMjYyNzczMDU3MzI5NjI3/?multi_permalinks=2262865960653670%2C2262773057329627%2C2261678980772368&notif_id=1555016417417126&notif_t=group_activity



Being interviewed on his bans.

https://www.facebook.com/johan.vrie.39/videos/412190799599006/UzpfSTYzMTk4NjE4NjpWSzoyMjYyNzczMDU3MzI5NjI3/?multi_permalinks=2263859657220967%2C2262865960653670%2C2262773057329627%2C2261678980772368&notif_id=1555016417417126&notif_t=group_activity


About the bans, this one by Avi Yemini 5th April 2019

https://www.facebook.com/sargonofakkad100/videos/547378355793798/UzpfSTYzMTk4NjE4NjpWSzoyMjU3OTg5NTI0NDc0NjQ3/

https://www.tr.news/breaking-tommy-robinson-banned-from-snapchat/?fbclid=IwAR14VTkUa3-WNjjIg1cTER83JF5qor_RYZvUvEK7K3HlVQPml6bqaxVXPOU


20th April, 2019,   Robinson says in an email sent to those on his mailing list:
"So I have been completely censored, de-platformed and pretty much erased from the face of the online earth by the establishment, the giant corporations and the so called 'powers that be'. Sadly things have got to such a level now that the general public and any innocent folk who even dare to simply just mention my name are now being penalised and met with a level of censorship which is no different to that of a communist dictatorship!!

This is absolutely insane and scary at the same time. The threat is absolutely real and is clearer now for everyone to see than it has ever been before. Even for those individuals who hate me with a passion it has become excruciatingly painful for them to now even remotely agree with me on what is happening and the ultimate effect that this level of censorship is having both now and in the future."

Some censorship is justified.  But the censorship of those who are only trying to tell us what is happening in the world is not only unjustified, it is criminal.  

The glorification of the hijab

In Western society these days, you see the hijab praised as a symbol of modesty.  It can also be a fashion symbol, and certainly, it can be attractive. The hijab frames the face, and makes the wearer look a little exotic, a little special, even more beautiful.

It takes little searching to find images of beautiful women wearing hijabs.  I even saw an image of a  beautiful woman, eyes heavily made up, wearing a niquab, ie the face is  covered, only the eyes visible.




I saw an item on TV of how more women with hijabs were taking part in professional sport.  I have seen a poor little school girl, arms and legs covered with dark fabric,  a hijab, and the normal school uniform on top.  She looked quite silly.

Those in power seem to be trying to normalise the hijab.  Politicians try and include a woman in hijab standing close, assuming it will convey how wonderfully tolerant they are.  News items like to include a girl or woman wearing a hijab, whether or not it is relevant to the story. Even most of the advertisements we see on TV manage to include a woman in a hijab.  They are trying to make it normal and accepted.

I have even heard people refer to the hijab or even full veiling, as 'empowering.' 


Ilham Omar, American politician, says that it means 'power, liberation, beauty and resistance.'







After the attack on a New Zealand mosque,  their Prime Minister, Jacinta Ardern, chose to wear a hijab as a symbol of solidarity, 'to bring people together,' she was saying.




And she encouraged other New Zealand girls and women to do the same. 











There is even a World Hijab Day, supposedly to foster understanding and tolerance for those Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab.  It was started in 2013, so this year, 2019, was its 6th year.  Some schools encouraged their female pupils to take part, and there were Muslim volunteers who showed the girls a selection of hijabs they could model.  Probably most of the girls thought it fun.


BUT WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE SAYING HERE?

The hijab is not a fashion accessory. It is not the practical wearing of a headscarf on windy days.

No.  The hijab is a statement that women are inferior to men, and must conceal themselves in order not to tempt the poor, pure men into temptation.

In some cultures, they go further.  After the Iranian revolution, the women were forced to wear the chador,  and in Afganistan, when the Taliban took over, they forced women to envelop themselves in  a burqa.  Even in places like Indonesia, women are under pressure to cover more of their bodies.


The most extreme form of covering is dreadfully restrictive, until the women looks like a parcel, a non-person.

This sort of garment is a real limitation on freedom.  She cannot even see clearly, so trying to cross a road is hazardous - if, that is, she has the freedom to leave the house.  In many Islamic cultures, women are slaves in all but name.



So wearing a hijab might make you feel good, virtuous maybe, demonstrating to the world what a wonderfully tolerant person you are? 

But it is not virtuous to wave chains at those slaves who have no choice.

Women in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arabic countries, can be beaten, or even imprisoned and tortured if they defy the strict dress code.

It is happening and it is happening now.

Beating women in Afghanistan

Now, a rational person might think that instead of forcing women to look like parcels in order not to tempt men into sexual indiscretion, it might be better to ensure the men learn self control,  and if they do commit sexual crimes because they were 'tempted,' throw the men in prison, not the women.  Because while the hijab is not particularly confining, the more extreme forms of veiling are akin to carrying your prison around with you. It is a wicked thing.

And lastly, the hijab is a symbol, not just of the oppression of women, but a symbol of an ideology that declares that non-believers should be put to death.

There are numerous verses in the Koran that say just that.

DO NOT WEAR THE HIJAB.  Do not encourage those who would put women in chains. 

And for those who call themselves 'feminists,' and yet tolerate this rot, then you had best stop calling yourself a feminist because you are no such thing!

Where have all the photos gone?

We take more photos now than we ever did.  They cost us nothing;  we just use our digital camera or mobile phone or other device and snap away.  Sometimes we put it online, but very often it merely stays on our computer or phone.  One day we realise there are thousands of photos, and yet almost none that we can simply and easily browse through.

Technology changes, computers crash, and maybe one day, we can find our photos gone.  But photos are our history.  They are important, and while we don't need thousands, we should keep some, if not for ourselves, for our descendants.

And this is why I think we need to revisit photograph albums.

I started thinking about this when I inherited some old photo albums from my parents.  But the photo corners, (remember them?)  had lost their stickiness, and photos were falling out.

I had other albums, more recent, the type with sticky pages.  But they don't last even as long as the ones with photo corners do.  The pages crinkle and they, also, lose their stickiness.  They needed redoing if I was going to keep them.

I did not keep all of those albums with their photos.  Mere 'just scenery' did not make the cut for redoing and keeping, and neither did one with a lot of  pictures of a very young baby.  Tiny babies tend to all look the same to anyone except for their doting mum. Those photos are now in an envelope, not discarded.  The landscape photos have been mostly thrown out.

We are so lucky now.  Old photos can be scanned, sharpened, the contrast increased, lightened or darkened, irrelevant bits cut off,  even people you no longer like, cut out.  Old coloured photographs that have turned reddish and faded can be improved.

Camera - slides,  (50s)
 Brownic Box Camera (50s)
Instamatic (60s)   

Slides can be printed, though it costs a lot if you want to do many.  And yet, for some, it is worthwhile. I have some charming images that have been taken from some slides from the 50s.

Left:  I think that child has a daisy chain around her ankle.



Right:  unknown kids

There are older photos, sometimes of poor quality, but important, all the same.

There are those even older, from the 20s and 30s.  These tend to be black and white, yellowed,. and often very small.  And even these can be improved, a precious memory of ancestors.

This photograph is quite poignant  - the pensive child holding the baby, a baby who looks sick or maybe half starved.

(In case, you were wondering,  the baby grew up to be an uncle, if not a father.)

The albums that belonged to my parents have been redone, putting it all in one album.  It became like a biography, the story of two people, linked for many years in life.   

The last photograph is a picture of the place where their ashes were combined and scattered.  The dates of their births and deaths are noted.

It is a biography in pictures. 

Another person I know did a similar thing with his old pictures.  The photos are old (60s)  but the album is new.   

So think about your photos.  Make sure and print some.  I know that special occasions such as the birth of a new babe,  and weddings, of course, are often celebrated with a ferociously expensive professional album.  Since we can all take good photos these days, so easily, and then amend them if necessary, I regard that as somewhat extravagant.  Nice, but not necessary. 

But what about all the other photos that just stay on your phone?  It is important that at least some are printed.  And the most important should be printed in black and white as well as in colour. Black and white photographs last longer.

I started wondering if my photograph albums were akin to the 'scrapbooking' hobby that became fashionable some years ago.  But a quick look at some sites dissuaded me.  The scrapbooks I saw were not the sentimental mementos of important occasions that I had envisaged, but a quite sophisticated art form.  

You don't have to be an artist.  Just make sure you have some photo albums to browse through.  

Old fashioned?  Doesn't matter.  One day you will be pleased you took the trouble.

  

"Beyond Reasonable Doubt."

One of the foundation principles of our court system is that a person may only be found guilty if the verdict is 'beyond reasonable doubt." Benjamin Franklin is supposed to have said that "it is better than one hundred guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer." (Some sources say a thousand guilty persons rather a hundred.)

And this principle still applies in our courts - except, it seems, when the crime is a sex crime, especially against children. Now, to rape a child is obviously one of the vilest of crimes, but even then, there should be a presumption of innocence, not a presumption of guilt.

The most recent example is the case of Cardinal George Pell, Catholic priest, accused of a crime that happened many years before, and finally convicted on the word of one man. (There was a second alleged victim, but he had already died, and had previously stated that he was not molested.)

Now this particular crime that was supposed to have occurred was so unfeasible as to be ludicrous. (Molesting two boys he found in the sacristy, when he was supposed to be somewhere else, so were the boys, who would have been missed, and Pell, as the presiding priest, always had an attendant with him as long as he wore the vestments. Plus it was in a time frame of just 6 minutes, it was in a place where people were coming and going, the door was not locked, and Pell had around four layers of heavy ceremonial garments to raise before any action could take place.)

I try and imagine the scenario, and think of him trying to raise said heavy garments, and then probably tripping and falling while the boys laughed at him and walked out of the open door!

As I said, it is not feasible. All the same, in December, 2018, the 12 members of the jury found him guilty, and in March, 2019, he was sentenced to six years in prison.

There is a pending appeal. Maybe the scales of justice might be looked at more closely this time.


I think that George Pell was found guilty because he was a Catholic priest, and we know now that far too many Catholic priests abused children. But Pell was not on trial for being a Catholic priest, he was not on trial for turning a blind eye to abuse that he may have known was occurring, and he was not on trial for taking part in coverups.



UPDATE: 7th April, 2020. The High Court of Australia has finally given its decision. George Pell is a free man. The seven judges of the High Court were unanimous in their decision. There has been a miscarriage of justice, and an old man spent over a year in prison for a crime that he did not do. The idea that 'victims' should invariably be believed is proven false once again.

----------

Other people have been found guilty of crimes that were not the ones for which they were tried. I suspect that Rolf Harris was found guilty because known paedophile, Jimmy Saville, died before he could face punishment, and all of those powerful people who had to have known and turned a blind eye, never faced punishment at all.

Harris was accused of several different crimes, some of them sounding quite minor.

The most serious crime he was accused of,  was committing a sex act when a girlfriend of his daughter was visiting - in the room they shared. He was found guilty even though the only evidence was her word. That girl, once grown up, initiated an affair with him, but that was no crime on his part. Was she a reliable witness? I hardly think so.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27907511

The prosecution must have known how weak their case was, and so they brought in 'witnesses of bad character.' I have never heard of that before, and am astonished that it was allowed. All the same, it was pretty fairly established that he was a bit of a sleaze. But a criminal and a paedophile? I don't think that has been established at all.

He was recently released. This is a picture of him with his wife Alwen. It is another reason I think him probably a good person. Most rich and famous men routinely exchange a wife for younger and more beautiful models. Harris did not.







Another case: John Francis Tyrrell was convicted of abusing a boy at Geelong's St. Joseph's College. The offending was supposed to have occurred in 1965 and 1966, it was a very long time before the complaint was made, and there were 'improbabilities' in the evidence.

It was appealed, and the ruling was that the verdict was unsound and was overturned. (March, 2019)
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/court-frees-priest-jury-verdict-unsound/news-story/953f14381a21e710eaff795773cc66f1

I think the same thing will happen with George Pell, though not with Rolf Harris.  I think that Harris is feeling he is too old to fight, and besides, there were too many accusers.  Note that those who made complaints against Rolf Harris were often rewarded with money, as are those who make complaints against various institutions who have tolerated abuse.


Here is another instance of a person being found guilty on the word of just one person.

Maggie Fitzpatrick,
NOT guilty of anything

Actress Maggie Kirkpatrick was found guilty of molesting a girl fan decades before. The only evidence of guilt was that of the woman, now grown. This was a judge only trial, not a jury trial, which makes it more incredible that she was found guilty.  That judge even made a deliberately humiliating order that a DNA test be performed, whether the prisoner cooperated or not. The case was in 2015.

Fitzpatrick played the part of a prison guard in a TV series. 'The Freak' as she was known, would molest prisoners with the excuse of conducting body searches.  It would seem impossible that a judge would confuse an acting role with the actor, but surely that must have been what happened.

Luckily for Kirkpatrick, the finding was overturned on appeal.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/12038401/Prisoner-actress-Maggie-Kirkpatrick-cleared-of-abusing-girl-in-Australia.html

And yet, while the guilty finding was widely and loudly publicised, I only discovered the 'Cleared' verdict by accident, much later.  Even now, with an internet search, the 'Cleared' article comes in at No. 6 on a search, while there are 5 before that, with the 'Guilty.'  How is that fair on poor Maggie?

It is like the media love to make people appear guilty, and any 'not guilty' verdict is a disappointment. 

Geoffrey Rush, well known actor, was accused of acting inappropriately while filming 'King Lear.'  The newspapers relished this, publishing a picture of him in costume,looking quite evil,  and labelled it 'King Leer.'  Rush sued them, and they thoroughly deserved it!  

Extra note added 15/4/19.  Rush won his defamation case.  

There has never been a criminal case, and yet Rush appears to have been judged guilty by the newspaper.



You cannot establish guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt' on the word of one person. 

Even if that person is not knowingly lying,   they may have forgotten details, or an incident may have occurred with another person and they became confused. They might even have dreamed it, or maybe it was a 'recovered' memory elicited by a psychologist.  (The idea that 'recovered' memories can be relied upon has long since been discredited.)

Because any complaint of sexual misconduct is almost automatically believed these days, it is being used more and more often for political purposes.

Last year, Brett Kavanaugh was nominated for the US Supreme Court. They have an odd system in America;  it seems that anyone in Congress can question the nominee, in detail, about whatever they want.  Almost at the last moment, there was an accusation made public.  A woman named Christine Blasey Ford accused him of sexually assaulting her during a high school party, many years before.  There was no corroborating evidence, and some evidence against it ever happening.  All the same, Kavanaugh nearly lost the nomination because of it.

It is my bet that next time Trump nominates someone for the US Supreme Court,  it will be a woman, simply because it is less believable that a rape might have taken place. The case of Maggie Kirkpatrick, of course,  shows that it can still happen.  

There is another factor that may make it more likely that accusations will be made, that of monetary gain.  If there is a likelihood of  'compensation,' whether from a rich man like Rolf Harris (maybe only formerly rich now)  or from compensation schemes set up after the Royal Commission into Institutional Abuse (Australia)  there will be always people putting their hand up to make an accusation.  And if the accusers are automatically labelled 'brave,'  and if there is not likely to be any nasty cross examination, why not?  Pell's accuser was not even named.

Some accusers will be genuine.  I know there were victims in the small country town I grew up in.  I only recently heard that the local doctor took on the Catholic heirarchy to try and get rid of the rotten priest.  He succeeded only in having him 'moved on' to abuse somewhere else.

So it does happen.

But after many years, memories become unreliable.  Some accusers will simply misremember - maybe blaming a high profile priest instead of the lowly one who did actually abuse him.

It is so easy to accuse.  Maybe too easy. And it is becoming more and more common, for many reasons, justice for some, maybe revenge for an unrelated crime, for example, a cruel care giver.  Money for others, and, of course, it is so effective in discrediting a political opponent.  

I even wrote a book with that theme, published a couple of years ago. It was one of the Penwinnard Stories, 'Mutty's Fort.'

These are set in a Boys' Home, and one boy set out, quite deliberately to bring down the manager.  In my book, the complaint was specific, and the manager was able to prove his innocence with a  strong alibi.  If the accusation had been made years later, with no definite date given, would the poor manager, who did his best for his boys, have wound up with a long prison sentence?
Probably.


And the mud does stick, whether found guilty or not.  It is unfair.

My conclusion and my plea:

DO NOT JUDGE ANY MAN OR WOMAN GUILTY ON A MERE ACCUSATION.

There must be guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt.'

Postscript added 21/8/19

Result of  George Pell's Appeal: 

And I AM FLABBERGASTED.   

Pell was accused of a crime that would have been almost impossible to commit, and based on the evidence of just one anonymous accuser. Evidence that he could not have committed the crime was ignored. He was tried and convicted by a jury. He went to Appeal, and he failed. There were three judges, the result was two to one.  So Pell returns to prison.

My faith in Australia's system of justice has dropped enormously.

He still has the option of an appeal to the High Court. But our High Court has made some very poor decisions in recent years, and his legal team might not consider it warranted. 

* 

Another postscript added December, 2019

Not every application to have an appeal lodged with the High Court is accepted.  This one has been. It will be heard some time in 2020.  Meantime, George Pell remains in solitary confinement in a high security gaol.



UPDATE:
7th April, 2020. The High Court of Australia has finally given its decision. George Pell is a free man. The seven judges of the High Court were unanimous in their decision. There has been a miscarriage of justice, and an old man spent over a year in prison for a crime that he did not do. The idea that 'victims' should invariably be believed is proven false once again.

Joy Holbrook - Children Striking for Climate Change action.

Joy Holbrook

This article is by Joy Holbrook.  It is in regard to the 'strike' by school children, who are trying to tell adults to do more to stop Climate Change - as if that was even possible.  The 'strike' is today,  15th March, 2019.  There have been similar strikes before, and not just in Australia. They are 'striking'  from schools, of course,  not striking from use of electricity or anything of that nature.






This entire agenda is a disgrace! As a former teacher, I'm happy I can sleep at night, knowing I didn't terrify children into believing that they have no future. My grandchildren are being brainwashed at school with this insidious rubbish but fortunately for them, they have parents and grandparents who tell them the truth.

As professional information disseminators, it's incumbent on you to provide children with facts, not hysterical rubbish. For example, are schools teaching that the polar ice caps are growing in size? Check NASA's website for the photographic proof. Are schools teaching that the planet has been through this cycle many times over the millennia? Read Ian Plimer for geological proof. Are schools teaching that the islands of Tuvalu and Kiribati, which Al Gore predicted woul be submerged by 2015, have grown in size since that prediction? I could go on but I know it's probably futile because those in the cosy left wing bubble don't care to step outside that bubble. And for the record, I voted Labor for over 50 years and, until three years ago, I believed in anthropogenic climate change. I believed that what I now know to be a rabidly left wing media, was telling me the truth. Then I retired and found myself with time to research.

In case you're not aware, I'll tell you what's REALLY going on. Climate change is being driven by two factors: the UN and our ubiquitous old friend, money. I've just read an article quoting the head of the UN climate body who admitted that the IPCC rounded up temperature data in their report last year. She also admitted that the alleged concern for global warming has nothing to do with the environment. It's about gaining control of energy worldwide, thus giving them control of industry and, by extension, the world's population. The goal of the UN is a One World Government. As to the money, the wealthy have billions invested in the renewables industry. The Turnbull family is a case in point. The Labor Party has investments, the unions, including your very own Teachers' Federation. Of course they're going to push the warming agenda. You're their puppets, dancing to their string pulling and you don't even realise it.

In conclusion, I'd ask you to go back to your classrooms and show your students video footage of vast solar farms in the US, covered with a good 30cm of snow, thus rendering them useless. The sun hadn't shone there for over a week anyway. Or maybe you could entertain them with the video footage of the helicopter dropping hundreds of litres of fuel onto a wind turbine to de-ice it. Brilliant for the environment! Stop frightening the kids and get back to what the teachers' charter tells you to do. Arm kids with facts that will give them a basis for a successful life, not over emotional claptrap that scares them. And while you're at it, ask them to give up their phones, game consoles, electricity and transport to and from school. That'll tell you how serious they are about saving the world.

Regards, Joy Holbrook. Wallsend.

The Second Silliest Thing You Can Do.

Your boy tells you he wants to be a girl, or your girl says she wants to be a boy, what is the second silliest thing you can do?

Recently I saw a piece of advice by a man concerned by the sudden epidemic of children claiming they are transgender. He was against the idea of providing 'support' for this nonsense.

If you are also against it, if you understand that it is not possible to 'be born into the wrong body'  or to change sex,  then what should you do?  What if your boy says he wants to be a girl?

The advice this man gave was that you should try and steer him towards male interests - sports, especially rough contact sports, and toy trucks rather than dolls.  And firmly steer him away from an interest in the arts or women's dress.

That is a very silly piece of advice in my opinion,  the second silliest thing you can do in the circumstances.  The effect is likely to be the exact opposite to the one intended.  If you try and force a boy to be more 'boyish,'  if you try to stop him following his own interests, his own inclinations, the likely result is that he will revolt against you, and further revolt against the male role you are trying to force him into.  He will be more determined that he is 'really' a girl,  and with the way things are at the moment, you may find that his school and even the state will try and 'help' the child on the way to pretend girlhood, even when the parents disagree.

It is a similar thing if a girl declares she would prefer to be a boy.

Do not put her in frilly dresses and then tell her she cannot play in the sandpit for fear of being dirty.

Do not give her Barbie dolls when she wants a construction set or a toy bulldozer.  Allow her to follow her own interests, whether or not you think it too 'masculine.'





One of the reasons there are more children declaring that they want to be the opposite sex these days (besides it being the fashion)  is the pressure to fit into a narrow role model,  and this is worse than it was 20 or 40 or 60 years ago.  Toys seem to be divided more along sex lines than they used to be - interesting things for boys,  and pink unicorns and glittery pretend jewellery for girls.  That is a good reason for any girl to revolt in my opinion.  So limiting!

Dolls and little model horses for girls?    Sure, if they want them.

And Lego and toy trucks for boys?   Sure, if they want them. 

But give horses to a boy and trucks to a girl if that is what they want.

And girls like Lego, and some boys like dolls.  

Do not limit their choices.  Let them be who they want to be without making them feel as if their sex is wrong.

There is nothing wrong with a boy being interested in dance or fashion,  nothing wrong with him not being interested in sport.  And there is nothing wrong with a girl being interested in whatever she chooses to be interested in.

Whichever sex they are, let them be who they want to be.  
Trying to force the stereotype upon them will not work.  

It is the second silliest thing to do in this situation.

So what is the absolute silliest thing you can do?

You can go along with their fantasy,  you can give them dangerous hormones, and even life-changing surgery.

And that is not merely the silliest thing you can do in this situation, it is worse that that. It is dangerous to their health. It can destroy lives.  Do you really want to castrate your boy?  Or allow your girl to damage her future ability to bear and to feed a baby?

There is nothing wrong with boys following 'feminine' interests, and there is nothing wrong with girls following 'masculine' interests.  

But there is a great deal wrong with harming their bodies to follow this nonsensical fad.

Once they are grown, you have no say.  By then, they may have grown out of the idea.  Most do.  If they have not, you can take consolation in the fact that at least you have not harmed their natural development.


And if you wind up with an effeminate boy.  Sorry, but some boys are effeminate, and some boys are attracted to other boys.

A 'mannish' girl?  There is nothing wrong with that, either.

So love them and accept them,  just do not encourage the delusion that they are anything else than what they are.