20150316
20150315
Stun me with a wet fish
Peter Fitzsimons, one of the Fairfax writers who wants us all to hold hands and sing Kumbayah as we are absorbed into a caliphate (sharia law being the spear head), is amazed at the objections that some have to Halal food.
I object!
1. Halal is not just a cute food fashion, 'culture' as the intelligentsia like to think. It is a part of a whole system of law that will reverse the 1000 years of creating the freedoms that we enjoy. Halal doesn't stand alone, it is an integral part of Sharia.
2. Halal certification fees form, in Islamic eyes, a tax we pay for the 'right' to not be Muslims in a Sharia state. It is their way by stealth, and we all dumbly follow, like the animals led to Halal slaughter.
The RSPCA is concerned there are much greater risks of an animal suffering during slaughter without stunning than for conventional slaughter. Slaughtering an animal while fully conscious requires additional handling and restraint and means that the animal will experience pain associated with the throat cut and subsequent bleeding out. For these reasons, the RSPCA is strongly opposed to all forms of slaughter that do not involve prior stunning of the animal.
4. I oppose Sharia, and will happily take up arms against it, if need be (I prefer Metal Storm electronically fired guns myself). I oppose it because I am against governments flogging women for reporting rape, for flogging dissenters who write for freedom, for preventing women from driving, voting, being educated, for stoning adulterers, for giving women no say in legal proceedings, for enslaving people disagreed with, for systematising the rape of women and girls who don't share your views, for making women wear tents (although, granted, for some women this is a decided improvement), for segregating everyday life in public places, for executing homosexuals. The list goes on.
Fitzsimons is clearly selective in his understanding of Sharia, and defective in his understanding of Islam.
I object!
1. Halal is not just a cute food fashion, 'culture' as the intelligentsia like to think. It is a part of a whole system of law that will reverse the 1000 years of creating the freedoms that we enjoy. Halal doesn't stand alone, it is an integral part of Sharia.
2. Halal certification fees form, in Islamic eyes, a tax we pay for the 'right' to not be Muslims in a Sharia state. It is their way by stealth, and we all dumbly follow, like the animals led to Halal slaughter.
The RSPCA is concerned there are much greater risks of an animal suffering during slaughter without stunning than for conventional slaughter. Slaughtering an animal while fully conscious requires additional handling and restraint and means that the animal will experience pain associated with the throat cut and subsequent bleeding out. For these reasons, the RSPCA is strongly opposed to all forms of slaughter that do not involve prior stunning of the animal.
4. I oppose Sharia, and will happily take up arms against it, if need be (I prefer Metal Storm electronically fired guns myself). I oppose it because I am against governments flogging women for reporting rape, for flogging dissenters who write for freedom, for preventing women from driving, voting, being educated, for stoning adulterers, for giving women no say in legal proceedings, for enslaving people disagreed with, for systematising the rape of women and girls who don't share your views, for making women wear tents (although, granted, for some women this is a decided improvement), for segregating everyday life in public places, for executing homosexuals. The list goes on.
Fitzsimons is clearly selective in his understanding of Sharia, and defective in his understanding of Islam.
20150314
GOTS
GOTS = genitals for other than sex; its what homosexuals do. It ain't sex because it can't and won't produce offspring. So its hardly an adult use of genitals!
Thus, there is, of course, no such thing as sexual 'orientation' as though there are valid varieties of sexual activity, no, if its not sex, then its GOTS.
Not only is sexual 'orientation' meaningless; it's also silly. It pretends that there is something legitimate (I mean biologically legitimate) that constitutes sexual behaviour or sexual intercourse that is other than what makes babies (even if the couple does not or does not want to at that time make babies). There is not.
Thus, there is, of course, no such thing as sexual 'orientation' as though there are valid varieties of sexual activity, no, if its not sex, then its GOTS.
Not only is sexual 'orientation' meaningless; it's also silly. It pretends that there is something legitimate (I mean biologically legitimate) that constitutes sexual behaviour or sexual intercourse that is other than what makes babies (even if the couple does not or does not want to at that time make babies). There is not.
20150313
Rainbow and you're in!
On the local council chambers flag pole, guess what?
They were flying a rainbow flag. No, not for the anniversary of Noah's flood, but for the assorted pack of who think that sexual deviance needs to be 'included' in society as some sort of valid regular and, dare I say it 'normal' sexual conduct.
Well its not....stick to that conduct and we die out in a generation. So tis not viable. And I don't want my local council to think that is needs to fly the flag for private perversions. Its gross, crass and of no interest in the public arena. What people do at home, no concern of mine.
They were flying a rainbow flag. No, not for the anniversary of Noah's flood, but for the assorted pack of who think that sexual deviance needs to be 'included' in society as some sort of valid regular and, dare I say it 'normal' sexual conduct.
Well its not....stick to that conduct and we die out in a generation. So tis not viable. And I don't want my local council to think that is needs to fly the flag for private perversions. Its gross, crass and of no interest in the public arena. What people do at home, no concern of mine.
20150308
Knox
Given the trouble Knox Grammar has caused its boys and society due to poor management by Dr Ian Paterson, it has decided to rename the Paterson Centre for Ethics and other Stuff.
I initially thought it might be renamed to the Les Paterson Centre for Crass Conduct; but my own suggestion would be a more casual but informative name, in keeping with the heritage that Dr Paterson left: "The Busy Dick Centre".
I initially thought it might be renamed to the Les Paterson Centre for Crass Conduct; but my own suggestion would be a more casual but informative name, in keeping with the heritage that Dr Paterson left: "The Busy Dick Centre".
20150214
ABC 3 attempts politics on kids
My complaint to the ABC:
During a promo (or perhaps a program intro) on ABC Friday (13 Feb 2015) evening, the talking head talked about the 'Stolen Generation' with the inference that children were removed from their families in large numbers and without cause in the words similar to "how would you like to be taken from your family...". With children in the room I turned the program off due to its tendentious and misleading nature.
Please clarify in future that some aboriginal children were 'given up' by parents, others were removed for their own safety due to the aboriginal cultural habits of abuse and neglect of children, and others (mixed parentage) were rejected by their family or tribe.
You might also point out that there was no policy to eliminate aborigines or to 'steal' them. For such children it was necessary and compassionate to provide them with alternative care within the mores of the period in question.
It was entirely misleading to not cast the narrative in these terms and blends for young children fiction and reality in an unfortunate manner.
During a promo (or perhaps a program intro) on ABC Friday (13 Feb 2015) evening, the talking head talked about the 'Stolen Generation' with the inference that children were removed from their families in large numbers and without cause in the words similar to "how would you like to be taken from your family...". With children in the room I turned the program off due to its tendentious and misleading nature.
Please clarify in future that some aboriginal children were 'given up' by parents, others were removed for their own safety due to the aboriginal cultural habits of abuse and neglect of children, and others (mixed parentage) were rejected by their family or tribe.
You might also point out that there was no policy to eliminate aborigines or to 'steal' them. For such children it was necessary and compassionate to provide them with alternative care within the mores of the period in question.
It was entirely misleading to not cast the narrative in these terms and blends for young children fiction and reality in an unfortunate manner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)