The Privileged

A mob that sits quietly on the right side of the Oz room have a lot to say amongst themselves as they sup on their cups, and occasionally they have 'Speakers' of their own invited in.  One such, Philippa, was in today for a lunch meeting. She rattled a few cages.

Not their cages of course, nor any here, but with luck it will shake a few of the lefties down in Hilary's Village.

She was pointing out a few of the hypocrites that infest our society. And that was quite timely as just last evening the Tasmanian citizenry have finally thrown out the socialist, greeny, feminist hypocrites who have been infesting our State parliament. A new lot of middle-of-the-road wannabees have taken the reins of the nag that is Tasmoania.

But the problems the socialist-green-feminists made remain and will likely keep on remaining like a chronic cough.

But, let us listen-in to Philippa Martyr, a nice, sensible gal, and I shall add a few comments of my own. She talks of something else.

Guest Post: Philippa Martyr – Check your privilege

 http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/03/16/guest-post-philippa-martyr-check-your-privilege/

 

 

In her recent online stoush with a group of angry transgenderites, Julie Burchill was told to ‘Check her privilege’. What on earth does this mean? Well, depending on who you ask, it’s either: 

an online expression used mainly by social justice bloggers to remind others that the body and life they are born into comes with specific privileges that do not apply to all arguments or situations. (knowyourmeme.com)
or 

“A term screamed by far left sheltered liberals when they hear a white person say something that might offend someone that isn't a straight white male.” (urbandictionary.com) 

In this case, the rough translation was that “Burchill should shut up because she was born with lady bits.” 

The racial politics have been playing thick and fast in Australia of late. What I haven’t noticed is the most vocal participants in the current slanging match stopping at any time to check their privilege. 

What privilege? The privilege of people living affluent middle-class lifestyles, on very healthy incomes, living in the suburbs they choose to live in, and sending their kids to the schools they want them to attend. 

This is not about anyone’s right to identify as Aboriginal if they choose. It’s about people who are living a lifestyle indistinguishable from the rest of the affluent class in Australia, but who nonetheless argue for and obtain special treatment, based on who their grandparents were. 

Marcia Langton. 'Dr' of Bullshit and Hate-Speech, especially against Andrew Bolt.

 Marcia Langton is one of those people who while calling others 'Racists' is a serial racist herself.  But a protected one, of course. Not like Andrew Bolt whom she regularly slanders.

The 'special treatment she receives extends to being a favoured 'aboriginal' interviewee on the ABC and allowed to slander, lie, spread hatred against reasonable people and generally be applauded by a hand-picked audience.

It is almost unheard of for an aboriginal - or even a white lefty - to be taken to Court like Andrew was. They seem to think they are free to incite hatred and even violence with impunity.


Andrew writes:

Langton is encouraged by Djarmbi Supreme, who in turn is encouraged by her.

 

He is paid by taxpayers. 

Djarmbi, who works as an Aboriginal Education Officer in Aboriginal Health.. 

Djarmbi, who was raised mostly by his white mother and solicitor step-father, claims to hate racists and says I am one: 

I wanna spear that Andrew Bolt c..t

To prove light skin mob still practise culture
That’s word… Honest...that’s my word
I won’t sleep easy till that rat gets burnt  

He means it:

“So yeah, I really do want to spear him in the leg - that’s not a joke.”

(Andrew says:)He thinks I’ve been too mean, and urges me to be kinder. 

An open letter to Andrew Bolt: 

I hope you get face cancer.... I want you to suffer and be humiliated. You are a piece of sub-human trash. 

But he worries the face cancer might be too slow a death for me, and suggests if “everybody chucked in a dollar we could have this c..t murdered”:

This is wicked, Incitement. Hatred.

But he is fireproof. No going to Court for him. The racist who hates racists and projects - as lefties do - his hatreds onto others.

Philippa goes on:

In any other country, this would be called ‘aristocracy’. In Australia, it’s grounds for lawsuits, attempts to obtain compensation payments, and a prodigious amount of what is  

best described as emotional blackmail.  

The disgraceful Goodes incident is a case in point: a wealthy, famous, young man was allowed to get away with – and was rewarded for – bullying a poorly-educated and disadvantaged 13 year old girl. 

I mentioned this chap some time ago. He is an Aboriginal and now, even after his racist attack on a child, is the

Australian of the Year.

It is a friggin' disgrace and a slap in the face.

That just has to tell you about the sort of situation Philippa is on about.

I look at the winners of Indigenous scholarships and cadetships, and I don’t need to comment on skin colour, because it’s completely irrelevant.

Except when demanding that privilege, when it becomes not only relevant but a licence to obtain taxpayers' monies from 'friendly' Government bureaucrats.

What is relevant is that these people are almost universally from privileged backgrounds that are indistinguishable from mine. 

I’d happily bet that, like me, these people had poor grandparents and aspirational parents. Like me, they may be the first generation of their family to go to university, and as a result they are now earning good money themselves. And it’s because of this that they don’t need help, especially not help that has been created to try to assist a group of people who haven’t enjoyed their privileged background. 

Someone else like that. !! Ran on a platform of being Black.

I have said elsewhere that what we have in common with Aboriginal people is far greater than what separates us: 

if we really want reconciliation, we must look at our common history and experiences in this country; our shared heritage of poverty and mismanagement, and also our shared growth, triumphs and failures. 

Ron Merkel QC himself said that Bolt’s remarks were ““a head-on assault on a group of highly successful and high-achieving” Aborigines.  

But if these people – and others like them – are highly successful and high-achieving, then where are the genuinely impoverished and genuinely underprivileged Aboriginal people who these scholarships and cadetships and other incentives were designed to help?

 

Were there no applicants from these backgrounds? If not, why not? Why aren’t we fostering genuine aspirations in this population?

I’m not starting the next class war, or at least not deliberately (the ABC has anticipated me there). I just think that perhaps the next time an affluent, well-paid, well-educated, articulate person starts speaking about injustice and racism - purportedly on behalf of other Aboriginal people – we need to start asking them to check their privilege.
 

Catallaxy Files.  Australia's only libertarian and centre-right blog.

Lefties of all ilks seem to be privileged. They get away with inciting hatred almost anytime, anywhere. Just watch and listen to this chap haranguing a crowd of deadbeats. If a 'conservative' dared say anything like he does - about shooting someone - there would be a parliamentary row and headlines.

 http://player.ooyala.com/iframe.html#pbid=578679ecae394ee1bc48023ad99be339&ec=txZWs3bDoQHszj_OlFsQYKm1Y9mDHf_c&docUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.news.com.au%2Fheraldsun%2Fandrewbolt%2F

Your Tavern Keeper is of course a Privileged Person. A Knight. A King in my day.

And a man.

We hear a lot about Male privilege, but in many decades of being a chap I cannot recall ever being a beneficiary of any sort of privilege that I have not fought hard to have and earned it by sweat and pain.

But what of the under-privileged womenfolk. The serially oppressed. One could almost see just ONE early suffragette as suffering painfully to get some privilege.

Pity it was a futile gesture. A stupid, 'look at me' waste of effort. Mrs Pankhurst had already sewn up the female vote thingo by attempting an assassination of the PM, firebombing government buildings and organising riots. But this lass is writ large as an 'earner', sacrificing herself. For the privilege of the vote. That was already in the bag. By threats and violence.

But she was just one: the ONLY one, while hundreds of thousands of young men, who also could not vote, were dying on the battlefield for her.

Some privilege they had!

Of course women, the Ultimate Under-privileged, have always had it bad. Just ask their spokeswoman of under-privilege.

But we digress. In Tasmoania where the undeserved, taxpayer-funded privilege is widespread, the completely wiped out Aboriginals (cry 'Genocide') are back from the dead in ten times their pre-genocide number and led by a really underprivileged chap.

If he and I walked along the beach, many people would be more likely to think I am aboriginal than he is.  In fact the only real difference twix he and me is that he is handsomely rewarded from the taxpayer pocket for being black and I am just handsome.

And I am a friggin' King !!

But... I AM privileged in a way that counts. I am charged by my Supplier to keep the taps flowing. 

To Him we are all equally loved, but some Love back and some just take, take, take.




Pax.

The Legal Trapdoor.

The Tavern uses a trapdoor to lower barrels into the cellar and allow the barman to descend to them and hook them up to the pumps, but legislators use Trapdoors to subvert the apparent intent of the Laws they make in order to drop free people into the Abyss.

We see this most clearly in the 'Human Rights' sphere.

A tavern visitor, Graham Preston, remains in Hobart this week quietly 'demonstrating' to a passing crowd composed largely of drones subverted by a decade of socialist-feminist-green AgitProp.  I have featured Graham in the last two posts here - this is the last in a 'trilogy' of posts for the moment at least - and yesterday I joined him on the street.

It is the hospitable thing to do. We cannot have him facing the tyrants alone.

Libri Vox, my arse.

Human beings have rights. The US Constitution, for example, considers that they are 'Inalienable' Rights, conferred by Almighty God, but the United Nations begs to differ.

Actually it doesn't beg at all. They - the massed nations run by Tyrants, Dictators, Thugs, Elites - subvert. Not only do they subvert the simple recognition that people are inherently free and come before States,  they subvert their own Declaration.

But first, Graham. I stood with him and faced the traffic and passers-by with simple signs.

WHO CARES ABOUT FREE SPEECH?

Simple enough you might think. Who could possibly take offence?

Everyone cares about Free Speech. Don't they?

And a grainy snap of a baby in the womb.

Heck, mums love to see their baby in the womb with the ultrasound gizmo.

No-one could possibly be 'offended'. Shirley?

It was with some sardonic humour for us then that we witnessed a Post Office van drive around the block four times in ten minutes so the driver could hurl invective out of his window.

The Tavern Keeper?  Old Amfortas? Without his armour? Maybe.

Whilst Graham was taking a well earned ten minute break and I was standing alone, someone else in a car slowed and shouted 'Go Back to Queensland'.

Hah!

Can idiots be made?

Sure can. Almost anyone can be spoiled with a little drip-fed effort. Socialists, atheists, greenies, feminists, all the Cultural Marxist useful idiots, contribute to the drips. Some drive Post Office vans.

We did have several nice people to provide some small measure of balance however. A rather vociferous woman came up and expressed her approval. Very loudly. And with gusto. A couple of chaps 'nodded' the way chaps do as a sort of silent g'day. A few car drivers 'tooted' rather than blared (as many did).

A little later, after lunch, when I went to do my usual Tuesday Rosary vigil  outside the clinic in defiance of Tasmania's atrocious abortion / anti-free-speech law, I was greeted by the lady who went to Graham's aid last week, when he was attacked. She too gave encouragement.

A lovely lady.

Back to the future. The legal case against Graham.

He is charged at the moment with failing to do as ordered by a policeman. That is: 'move along there'.  But Graham's lawyer has indicated that he will challenge the Constitutional basis for the 'abortion' of a law that says he cannot stand on a pavement with a sign within 150 metres of the clinic.

You would think, surely, that legislators would enhance people's safe exercise of their inalienable rights when they enact Laws. But no. They drop in 'trapdoor' clauses which give preceding rights to other people to trample on yours. Just in case they are too scared to enrage people by actually enforcing their stupid laws.

So, policemen can 'instruct you' to 'move along there' at whim, with the excuse that 'someone has complained'.

That 'someone' has their identity withheld, of course, to 'protect' them from 'reprisal', so the police can and indeed do simply make it up.

The flowery phrases of the UN's 'Universal Declaration is like that too.

We might envisage the Declaration as couched in terms a child can understand.

 

 

Er.....

 

In fact one can read all sorts of really fine, relatively simple and straightforward  things in it until you get to 'move along there' and read ...

 

Article

29.

Let's have a squiz.  Remember, when doing statutory construction, be sure to read the entire statute.

Contained within the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the trapdoor that effectively flushes all of its stated universal "rights" away.

Frank Scarn, in the P&B dropped it on us.

Article 29 reads, 

    (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. 

    (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. 

Do you see the “by law” trick?  

Rights are first granted, but then they’re made subject to limitations as set forth "by law."  

In other words, it's all a charade.  

In a UN world, which bears great similarity to an Islamic world, government comes first and foremost, with the people "allowed" to exist but only to serve the state. 

Article 29 is a playground for any totalitarian government.  

In the UN / USSR / EU approach to government then,

government “gives,”  

but government can take away,

and still be within compliance with the UDHR by simply referring to and relying upon Article 29.  

If a “right’ can be taken away, then no right ever existed.  

No counterpart of Article 29 exists in the US Constitution.

That "by law" limitation trick is found throughout EU documents.

 So you see, there is not a hope of a polythene dog in Hell that we can escape with our freedom intact while Australia is in Thrall to the UN.

The Government of Oz itself does not even have its hand on the Trapdoor lever.


Pax Dei

You and I will need it.

Some are More Equal than Others

The conversations in the Bars were dark today. It has been a week that shows dark colours. We had our friend Graham in from his arrests and bailing. The situation is Tasmania is a hue or two from that elsewhere in the western world, once so 'free', but with increasingly dark clouds coming across.

Not many of my customers get arrested for simply standing by the road with a sign, let alone beaten and sprayed with noxious substances. That has happened this week to our friend. I will let him tell in his own words.

Following are copies of the daily reports from my very eventful week in Hobart. 

Tuesday March 4
After arriving in Hobart on Monday March 3, I tried to prepare myself as best I could for however things might work out this week. 

On Tuesday, at about 7.45am, I went and stood at the corner of Victoria and Macquarie Streets, Hobart. I held a placard which read, 

Every one has the right to life,  

Article 3 Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

on the front, and,  

Every child has the right to life,  

Article 6 Convention on the rights of the Child 

on the back. I also held an enlarged photo of an 8-week-old preborn baby. 

Now we can see just what the Law here, or rather our Socialist-Feminist-Green Government Legislators see as dangerous.

I wondered if the police would arrive in five minutes or if they would come at all. The traffic at that location is heavy and so many people would have seen the signs. It was also good for me to see a few friendly faces. By 10.30 the traffic had slowed down and I was beginning to think about having a break. 

It was just then though that a reporter from The Mercury newspaper showed up with a photographer and she did an interview. Not long after they left an ABC radio journalist and an ABC television reporter and cameraman arrived and did interviews.  

When the tv crew didn’t leave but hung around for a while I wondered if they knew something I didn’t. Sure enough at 11.20 the police showed up. 

The Media and the Police work hand in glove here, as befits a semi-totalitarian State.

They gave me a direction to leave even though I tried to explain that I was merely promoting these two UN documents.  

When I didn’t move on I was arrested and taken to the city police station. I was given bail on the condition that I agree not to go back to that place and I have to appear in the Magistrates Court on Friday morning. 

Reports of the action and the arrest were carried on the radio, television, in The Mercury, and perhaps elsewhere. 

Wednesday March 5
On Wednesday morning I went to Main Road in suburban Moonah and this time I had a sign saying,  

Should human rights apply to all human beings?  

On the front, and,  

Are unborn babies human beings?  

on the back. I had another photo of the 8-week-old preborn baby.  

(Fortunately I brought extra signs as the police have been keeping them.) 

At this point one has to ask those who argue for abortion, just what are your answers to these questions. 

I am sure they have an answer and could discuss and debate it, but as we see

 No-One is Allowed to Ask.

On this occasion no media showed up and perhaps that was in part due to the police arriving just 40 minutes after I got there. This time the police emphasised that the problem was the photo of the baby.  

They said that people had been complaining that it was offensive and that while I could hold the placard with the words I would have to get rid of the photo.  When I refused I was arrested again and taken to the local station. 

Just who would complain? Just who would be offended?

I am sure burglars are full of complaint when they are caught and 'offended' too. But they don't have their offendedness acted upon, do they?

Only the wicked would take offence.

I doubt we, or Graham will ever face his complainant. We shall not get to know just who complained. They are 'protected.

If they exist at all

As on the previous day I was charged with disobeying a police direction, rather than with an offence under the new Act (despite what some media reports have said). I was bailed under the same conditions and have to appear on Friday for this charge also at the Magistrates Court. I am very grateful that I have been offered legal representation. 

I plan to continue the street protests, but without breaching the bail conditions, up until the elections are held. Thanks very much for your support and we will see what else develops. 

Thursday March 6
Today, I stood on the footpath of one of Hobart's busiest streets and held a sign saying, Are unborn babies human beings? alongside an enlarged photo of an 8-week-old preborn baby.  

Sadly a disturbingly high number of people were willing to shout at me that they are not human! That was not the worst thing that happened though.  

After I had been there some hours,  

I was suddenly attacked from behind by a very angry woman.  

She grabbed the signs and began to scribble on them with felt pen. I grabbed them back before she did much damage but she then opened a shaken up can of Pepsi and sprayed it over me and then threw the partly full can which hit me in the face.  

She then left only to drive past a minute or two later and threw an unopened can of drink at me. It missed me but almost hit a couple who were standing nearby. I thought that would be the end of it but she parked and came back again. This time she just kept pushing herself into me, all the while maintaining screamed abuse. 

There was little I could do without getting violent myself but the whole thing was attracting a lot of attention and someone rang the police. An elderly man was very supportive through the whole incident which went on for about twenty minutes before the police came.

Good man.

A young woman who was standing nearby joined in with the original antagonist to some extent but in the midst of it another young woman pushed her way in to the mayhem and extended her hand in an act of support! 

Good woman.

The police ordered the woman to leave which she did eventually. I decided there was little point in pressing charges and didn't do so. I then went back to my position, somewhat shaken but unhurt. It has been quite a few days here. 

At this point it is needed to be said that attacks in the street like that is 'Common Assault'. It is a criminal offence. Individual victims are not required to press charges. The Police ARE. Why did that woman, again whose name we shall never know, not get arrested.?

Was it because she was a woman ?

Friday March 7
In view of the considerable negative reaction yesterday, and especially the crazy assault from the woman, I made a new placard which read,  

Who cares about free speech?  

I held that up alongside the baby photo in the same location I was at yesterday. 

Well, the woman didn't come back but I still did get a lot of criticism from passing motorists and pedestrians, even with that sign! (or maybe because of it) There were some friendly faces too though which was good. 

Clearly the Cultural Marxist mind-set, spread by the socialists and feminists and greens has taken firm control of many people. They do not care about free speech.

When the mob comes for them they will.

Anyway at 9.30, I, along with a solicitor who generously provided assistance at short notice, and a great local pro-lifer, Kathy, went along to the Magistrates Court. The prosecutor suggested that the case may take 1 1/2 to 2 hours but my solicitor said it would go longer as Constitutional questions would be raised. So it has been set down for a further mention on May 7.  

I just hope I don't have to come back to Tasmania just for that! 

This could become a very significant case regarding free speech near the abortion clinics and more widely. I'm very grateful therefore to have had some barristers indicating that they recognise its importance and are offering to be involved. I'm free but I plan to remain in Tasmania until next weekend and continue the street protests until the election on March 15. 

Thank-you to every for remembering us in your prayers and please continue to do so this week and into the future as this case has potentially much riding on it and has a long way to go.

Salute Graham.

A Hero.

The Law is the Law.

UPDATE: See at bottom.

We are law abiding folk in the Tavern. Laws are there for the governance of society and the service of its people. But not all Laws, always. Why do you think laws evolve? Some are expressions of greed, power and, let us be frank, Evil.

A mature, adult person of Good Conscience has a duty to obey the law but what of his conscience? Which has priority?

I stated my view a while ago.

http://parzivalshorse.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/the-duty-to-break-bad-laws.html

The Police are there to deter crime, investigate crime and arrest criminals. Unfortunately the determination of just what is 'criminal' and what isn't is not left to policemen to decide. The Legislators do that. And we have a mixed bunch of those about who bow to no conscience at all as far as we can tell, or at least silence their own and other people's.

I explained here a while ago that I would be breaking the law, regularly and persistently, outside in the village.  Outside the Abortion Clinic in Hobart. A chap I know also does elsewhere and did just a few days ago here.

Mr Graham Preston.

 

 

 

Just as I decry the 'at-call' killing of babies, especially those who pose no threat to the life of a mother, so does Graham. But here in Tasmania the 'Law' not only facilitiates it, but forbids anyone even talking about it near the clinic.

 

Free speech has been suspended in Tasmania. So Graham decided to come down and 'speak up'.

I was aware that Graham would be there holding his protest, and he knew that it was and is my usual practice to say a Rosary outside that ‘Specialist Medical Centre’ every Tuesday at around 2pm. It is the only time I am in town.

I don't stay in the Tavern all day every day. I do get out!

I wrote some time ago to every politician in Tasmania telling them that I would. I have even been observed there by Politician Nick McKim who took no notice despite being party to getting that awful, anti-baby, anti-Free Speech legislation through.

I arrived there a little early at 1,15 so that I might talk with Graham and stand with him. But it was all over by then and....

Graham had been arrested.

I shall be there again, as usual, next week.

It is my practice to quietly pray for the souls of the murdered babies, their misguided and errant mothers, the ‘doctor’ who flies in and flies out each week and the nurses who assist him. I pray for the people of Tasmania who go about their business with blind eyes.

Fortunately Bill Muehlenberg has been busy telling everyone about it too.

Stand Up For Babies?  

You Will Be Arrested  

For daring to stand up for the unborn, a Queensland man has been arrested – again.  

One of the most committed pro-lifers in Australia, Graham Preston, was again behind bars, awaiting his fate. He has spent plenty of time in jail already, having been arrested multiple times for seeking to defend the unborn. 

His latest arrest occurred in Hobart where the state’s new abortion laws were put to a test. As one news report says, “A Brisbane man has become the first person charged under a new Tasmanian law which bans protests close to abortion clinics. 

“The lone protestor, Graham Preston, was arrested after holding two placards and handing out leaflets while standing outside an abortion clinic in central Hobart. The 58-year-old says he has been arrested for similar action in Brisbane and came to Hobart to promote the right-to-life message. 

“Preston said he was aware of the new Tasmanian law which prohibits such protests within 150 metres of an abortion clinic.  

‘It would seem to me to be incredible if somebody could get arrested for promoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Australia is a signatory to it,’ he said.  

Police charged Preston under the Reproductive Health Act. He was released on bail and will appear in court at a later date.” 

The draconian Tasmanian abortion bill, along with the 2008 Victorian bill, are amongst the most liberal in the world in terms of allowing open slather on baby killing, but amongst the more stringent in terms of ... 

preventing pro-lifers from being allowed to raise their voices. 

The Tassie law was amended somewhat from its original version when it was first introduced, but it is still an incredible piece of legislation in the way it sides with baby killers while deterring by force of law peaceful protestors. Aspects of the new law which went through late last year are now being fully tested by Preston. 

He is no stranger to paying the price for seeking to rescue the innocent from slaughter.  

He has spent many long months behind bars, away from friends and family, all because he is committed to rescuing babies from their gruesome fate.  

Because of his dedication and zeal, I have penned a number of pieces about him over the years: 

billmuehlenberg.com/2007/04/24/are-we-willing-to-pay-the-price/ 

billmuehlenberg.com/2012/04/30/real-heroes-are-hard-to-come-by/ 

billmuehlenberg.com/2012/06/11/the-pc-honours-list/ 

Graham Preston released a press statement today, explaining his actions:

Man arrested in Hobart while promoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

This morning Graham Preston was arrested in Hobart at the corner of Victoria and Macquarie Streets. 

At the time of his arrest he was holding a placard which, on one side, read, “Every one has the right to life, Article 3, Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” and on the other side read, “Every child has the right to life, Article 6, Convention on the Rights of the Child.” 

He was also holding an enlarged photograph of an 8-week-old preborn baby. He was standing at the corner of Victoria and Macquarie Streets in the city. He has been charged with failure to comply with a direction of a police officer, granted bail and will appear in the Magistrates Court on Friday March 7. 

Mr Preston’s wife, Liz Preston asked, “What is the problem with promoting these two UN documents on the streets of Tasmania? After all, Australia is a signatory to both documents. 

“Who would say that they don’t support human rights? So what is wrong with quoting these human rights documents in any public place? How could this be illegal? 

“These quotes simply state that every one/every child has the right to life. 

“Moreover, the Convention on the Rights of the Child states that the child needs legal protection before birth. It also defines ‘child’ in Article 1 as meaning ‘every human being below the age of eighteen years.’ 

“Are the authorities in Tasmania going to try and claim that the preborn child is not a human being? 

“This is outrageous that my husband has been arrested for this. The charge should be dropped at once. 

“Where do those running for political office in the current elections stand on this?” Does the Premier, Lara Giddings, along with the Labor Party support these documents? Does the Leader of the Opposition, Will Hodgman, along with the Liberal Party? Does the Palmer United Party? Do the Greens? 

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. 

We need to do several things here. Obviously we need to pray for Graham and his family.  

We also need to support him in public, by any means available (letters to the editor, talk-back radio, petitions, letters to MPs, etc).  

And we need to continue to work against unjust and evil laws which decriminalise baby killing while criminalising peaceful protest. 

www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-04/brisbane-man-charged-over-anti-abortion-protest-in-hobart/5297756?section=tas

Another customer, Douglas, was hopeful.

 I am pleased to note that Graham Preston is utilising the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Although it does not give a guarantee of powers over which the Australian courts must bend to, it does mean that any persecution Preston – or anyone else – receives for peaceful, non-invasive, protest is a problem for which the Australian nation may have to answer to internationally. 

Most judges are aware of a need to consider the greater good, where a judgement is not predicated strictly by the law.  

Only a stupid judge, if given room to manoeuvre, would decide that the greater good is served by going against international treaties signed by his government.

I do not have great faith in the mental or moral powers of Judges in Hobart. I hope they surprise me with some common sense.

Australia is a signatory to the UN's Human Rights Declaration which specifically defends the rights of the unborn.  But Australia disregards that.

UPDATE 7 March.

Graham has appeared in Court today and his case was adjourned until May for a trial in the High Court. He has indicated that his 'not guilty' defence will challenge the Constitutionality of the Tasmanian Law.

Today, Graham was physically assaulted in the street. By a woman. She was not arrested.

A stiff drink for Graham.

Premium Grace.

Pax

The Political Songwriter

Much of what passes for music these days is an expression of hedonism on the one hand and nihilism on the other. Poetic songs have all but disappeared; melodic ones too. Loud, raucous blasts as a background to semi-naked teens and twenties girls fill our screens and 'stadiums'.

Most of it is a tool of the Left to dumb-down the young and keep them down. Entertainment was the easiest of the 'Institutions' for Gramsci's illiterate demons to march through. Dumb 'Rap' is its perfectly imperfect.

(James Higham, a regular here in the UK room, would include many visual 'artists' and architects too.)

But.... almost hidden amongst the dross and the noise, though almost just as noisy, are to be found some 'conservative' or even what the left would call 'right-wing' songwriters and performers.

Mike Adams brought some mates around to the Music room to blast our ears and to 'translate' for us.

In recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in the books of Ayn Rand. After escaping from the Soviet Union in the 1920s, Rand became a famous American playwright, philosopher, and novelist. She has written many books – three of which I would urge everyone to read.  

The first, Anthem, is a lot like Orwell’s 1984. The second, The Fountainhead, is a longer novel expounding on her philosophy, which is known as objectivism. The third, Atlas Shrugged, is her most famous work and includes the most complete explanation of her views on economics and morality.

For those interested in Rand, I also recommend a song that was inspired by a rock musician who reads her work.  

His name is Neil Peart – a member of the band “Rush.”  

Neil is the greatest rock and roll drummer who ever lived. He is also one of the greatest songwriters who ever lived.

Hmmm. I can assure you that such a claim raised some hackles in the bars and many pints of calming fluid were pulled.

The Trees

Mike Adams

http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2014/02/24/the-trees-n1798689/page/full 

When I was a teenager in the 1970s, Peart wrote “The Trees,” which fast became one of my favorite songs. I didn’t know at the time that the song was a  

stinging indictment of socialism and communism  

inspired by Neil’s reading of Ayn Rand novels.  

The verses  are below with some brief comments in between most verses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhFsQxl2M8o

There is unrest in the forest,
there is trouble with the trees,
for the maples want more sunlight
and the oaks ignore their pleas.

When I look back on it, I am somewhat embarrassed that it took me so long to figure out the symbolism behind the oak versus maple contrast.  

This is a classic Marxist over-simplification, which is intentional on Peart’s behalf.  

There were only two classes of people according to Marx - the “haves” and the “have nots” or, as he called them, the “bourgeoisie” and the “proletariat.”  

Here, the oaks are the “haves” or the “bourgeoisie” and the maples are the “have nots” or the “proletariat.”

The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
they say the oaks are just too lofty
and they grab up all the light.

This verse is interesting because it raises the issue of absolute versus relative poverty.  

When the maples claim that the oak trees grab up all the light they are exaggerating – actually, the author of the song, Neil Peart, is exaggerating for effect.  

Oaks are big trees, to be sure. In my own yard, there is an oak that is 100 feet tall that will eventually grow to be about 125 feet tall. But maples are big trees, too. I have a sugar maple that is about 60 feet tall that will eventually grow to be about 80 feet tall.

Peart, quite ingeniously, shows that the “have nots” would be more accurately characterized as simply “having less than others.”  

Their problem is not that they do not have enough to get by. The problem is that, in their view, the oaks are just “too lofty.”  

In other words, others have too much.  

That is the key phrase in this paragraph because it reveals that covetousness, rather than true need, is what motivates the maples.  

In reality, that is always the motive of the collectivist.

But the oaks can't help their feelings
if they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
can’t be happy in their shade. 

It is funny to me that the lyrics to this song were written just a few years before Ronald Reagan became President of the United States. After he took office, there was no small amount of controversy about his ideas concerning “trickle down” economics. Here, the oaks seem to reference the idea that their loftiness benefits others, too – this time, in the form of shade. This is a classic “trickle down” economic argument. 

There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
as the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads.

So the maples formed a union
and demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
we will make them give us light."

This is classic Ayn Rand.  

She focuses on unjustly taking from someone that which he has earned – noting that this always involves a violent struggle.  

The maples begin by screaming, and then they start demanding. Finally, they settle upon force, not reason, in order to obtain what they want. The results are always predictable.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
for they passed a noble law,
and the trees are all kept equal
by hatchet, axe, and saw.

This last verse is chilling because it reveals two truths about progressivism:

1) Progressivism is not progressive.  

Oppression is ended and equality is achieved not by advancing anyone but by retarding the achievements of some.

2) Social justice is punitive, not restorative.  

No one is restored under a progressive system, but people are often punished in order to guarantee equal outcome. That is another reason why Rand prefers to use the term “collectivism” rather than “progressivism.”

Ayn Rand was not a Christian. Nor was she one who professed belief in the Ten Commandments.  

Nonetheless, she understood that what is often packaged as compassion is really covetousness in disguise. We would do well to familiarize ourselves with her work in an age of “collective” historical amnesia. Screams of oppression and cries for revolution are never more than a generation away.

(Author’s (Mike's) Note: This is a column I wrote back a few years ago but never published. Instead, it appeared in abbreviated form in my latest book, Letters to a Young Progressive. Given recent political trends, I thought it would be good to publish it in its original extended form.)

 If pressed, this Tavern Keeper might recommend a rock singer-songwriter, even though only small riffs can be taken. But I can listen to him 'rant' all day.

Alfonzo Rachel, of 20Lb Sledge.

If you have not heard a seemingly across-the-tracks black man who can speak with the fluidity of Daniel Hannan and just as 'conservative', this rapid-fire speaker can also belt out some heavy rock.

 

Divine Battery by 20 lb SLEDGE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FvmesaxXg

 

Zo, as he is sometimes known, is electric as a speaker. You can find out more about him at:

http://alfonzorachel.com/about/

 

 

Meanwhile, my ears need refreshing. I could offer Zo a job here.

 

Pax

 

Quietly.